Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. SAMVATSAR, J.
HARVINDER KAUR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Respondents
Writ Petition 2254 Of 2003
Decided On : 12/07/2006
Stamp Duty - Property Agreement - Indian Stamp Act, 1899, Section 47-A - The court discussed the interpretation of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and its application in the case. The court highlighted the key legal provisions and their influence on the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners entered into an agreement for the purchase of a house, which was not complied with by the respondents. A suit for specific performance was filed, and a decree was passed in favor of the petitioners. The Registrar demanded additional stamp duty on the market value at the time of registration, leading to a series of appeals and orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Registrar had no jurisdiction to refer the matter to the Collector for registration as there were no recorded reasons to believe that the market value set forth in the instrument was not true. As a result, the impugned orders were set aside, and the petition was allowed.
Issues: The key issue was whether the Registrar had the right to demand additional stamp duty on the market value prevailing at the time of registration, and whether there were valid reasons to believe that the market value set forth in the instrument was not true.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Registrar's jurisdiction to demand additional stamp duty is based on having reasons to believe that the market value set forth in the instrument is not true. In the absence of such reasons, the Registrar has no jurisdiction to refer the matter to the Collector for registration.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside. No costs were awarded in the case.
( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioners have entered into an agreement dated 28-8-1978 with Kishanlal s/o ganpatlal John for purchase of a house situated at MLB Board opposite Phoolbagh, lashkar, Gwalior. The agreement was not complied with by respondents No. 4 to 10, hence the present petitioners filed a suit for specific performance No. 18-A/1991. The decree for specific performance was passed in favour of the present petitioners on 13-10-1995 and in execution of the said decree the Court directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the present petitioners.
( 3 ) THE sale deed was presented before the Registrar of Stamps for registration. The registrar at the time of registration referred the matter for fixing market value vide order annexure P-2 dated 5-1-1998. On his reference, the Collector of Stamp issued notices to the petitioners, who filed objections annexure P-3 and P-3-A. According to the petitioners, as they have purchased the property in pursuance of an agreement to sale in their favour, which was entered into on 28-8-1978 is liable for payment of stamp duty as on the date of agreement. Therefore, the Registrar of Stamp has no right or jurisdiction to demand additional stamp duty. According to them, as the agreement was entered into in the year 1978, they have truly set forth the valuation in the instruments.
( 4 ) THE Collector after hearing both the parties passed the order Annexure P-4, wherein he has stated that the stamp duty on the instrument shall be payable on the date on which the document was presented for registration and the document cannot be registered on the market value as per agreement and rejected the objections raised by the petitioners. This order was challenged by the petitioners before the Commissioner by filing an appeal. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal vide order Annexure P-5 dated 2-4-2002 and the said order was confirmed by the Board of Revenue in the appeal filed by the petitioners on 5-5-2003 vide annexure P-6. Hence, this petition is filed by the petitioners.
( 5 ) THE first contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the object of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is to prevent evasion of stamp duty. According to him, the petitioners had entered into an agreement to purchase the property on 28-8-1978 and had filed civil suit for specific performance, which was ultimately decided on 13-10-1995. Thus, they were involved in the litigation for about 17 years. Thereafter, they filed execution and ultimately the Court has directed to register sale deed in their favour in pursuance of the agreement dated 28-8-1978. Therefore, they are required to pay stamp duty on the market value, which was prevailing on 28-8-1978 and not on the date of tendering the documents for registration.
( 6 ) FOR this purpose, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on judgment of andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of sub-registrar, Kodad Town and Mandal v. Amaranaini China Venkat Rao, AIR 1998 AP 252. In that case the parties have entered into an agreement to sell in the year 1965 and a decree for specific performance was passed in the year 1977 and the documents were registered in pursuance of decree for specific performance. The Registrar demanded the stamp duty as per market value on the date when document was presented. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that as document is 30 years old, there is no question of evasion of stamp duty and directed to the Registrar to register the documents and held that stamp duty is payable on the date on which agreement was entered between the parties.
( 7 ) ANOTHER judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioners is in the case of s. P. Padmavathi v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1997 Madras 296, in which the Madras High court has held that as per Section
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
