Family settlements documented after oral agreements do not require registration or stamp duty, affirming existing rights without creating new ones.

JUDGMENT :

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.

I.A. 45899/2024 (under Section 151 of CPC, 1908)

1. The instant application has been filed by applicant-defendant No.1, seeking a refund of the stamp duty amounting to INR 6,00,000/-.

2. It is apparent from the record that a preliminary decree was passed on 28.03.2022, declaring that the plaintiff and the defendants were each entitled to a 1/5^th undivided share in the suit property. Thereafter, a final decree dated 11.10.2022 was passed, directing the distribution of the sale proceeds conforming to the shares determined in the preliminary decree. The Registrar informed the parties that they were required to deposit INR 6,00,000/- towards the stamp duty to draw the final decree.

3. The applicant-defendant No.1, i.e., Amit Jain, deposited the stamp duty on behalf of all the parties on 18.05.2023, and the final decree was prepared on 25.05.2023. Subsequently, applicant-defendant No.1, filed an execution petition for execution of the final decree.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant-defendant No.1 submits that during the pendency of the execution proceedings, defendant No.2, sold his undivided 1/5^th share in the property to applicant-defendant No.1 against consideration and a stamp duty amounting to INR 6,01,124/- was paid to the Stock Holding Corporation of India for the registration of the sale deed dated 21.02.2024. Similarly, the plaintiff, also sold his undivided 1/5^th share in the property to applicant-defendant No.1. With respect to the aforesaid sale as well, besides consideration, stamp duty amounting to INR 6,01,124/- was paid to the Stock Holding Corporation of India for registration of the sale deed dated 11.06.2024.

5. It is also a matter of record that vide order dated 02.07.2024, this Court keeping in mind the terms of the Memorandum of understanding (MoU) dated 17.06.2024 disposed of the execution petition.

6. The applicant-defendant no.1 has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Mukesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr , [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3832] and the decision of this Court in CS COMM No. 469/2019 titled Proud Securities and Credits Private Limited v. Urshila Kerkar and Anr.

7. The Court on an earlier date directed for issuance of notice to the State’s counsel. Ms. Harshita, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Sameer Vashishth, SC for GNCTD appeared today.

8. The registration of any conveyance or document of transfer has been mandated by the REGISTRATION ACT of 1908 (the Act). The rigors of Section 17 of the Act are of a disabling provision and unless a document is brought within the ambit of sub-section 2, registration of a conveyance transferring any right in an immovable property is a mandate. However, Section 17 (2) carves out exceptions, detailing specific documents that do not require compulsory registration. Amongst these, Section 17 (2)(vi) provides an exemption for Court decrees and orders. The provision stipulates that, in general, a decree or order passed by a Court does not necessitate registration unless it is a compromise decree that incorporates immovable property beyond the subject matter of the lis.

9. Furthermore, under the Indian STAMP ACT of 1899 ( STAMP ACT ) also, an order or decree passed by a Court is not inherently subject to stamp duty, as it does not fall within the scope of chargeable instruments enumerated in Schedule I or I-A, read in conjunction with Section 3 of the STAMP ACT .

10. This position has been explained by the Supreme Court while discussing the interplay between two abovementioned statutes in the case of Mukesh v. State of Mad