ORDER

1. This writ petition is filed being aggrieved of order dated 21.2.2017 passed by learned 5th Additional District Judge, Sagar, District Sagar in Execution No.20-A/2008 directing the present petitioner to deposit stamp duty as per current market value of the suit property for its registration in terms of the judgment and decree which was passed on 27.6.2009.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since he is seeking execution of the judgment and decree dated 27.6.2009, therefore, the relevant date for valuation of the property will be 27.6.2009 and not any subsequent date.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this High Court in case of Rambabu Agrawal v. State of M.P., 2003(3) MPLJ, 151.

4. Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the prayer.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, section 3 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to 'Act of 1899') deals with stamp duties. Section 3 provides that instruments are chargeable with duty. Thereafter, there is a State amendment.

6. Issue which is involved in the present petition is chargeability and time of stamping.

7. In case of Media Anasuyamma and Another v. Choppela Lakshmamma, AIR 1992 AP 183 , it is held that the criteria for chargeability is the date of execution of the document for the purpose of the document being chargeable and be treated as duly stamped. The provisions of section 2(6), 2(12) and 3 of the Stamp Act, 1899 show that it is the date of execution of the document and not the date of presentation into the Court, i.e. relevant for purposes of stamp duty payable on the instrument. Section 2(6) of the Stamp Act, 1899 define the word "chargeable" reads as under:-

"chargeable, means as applied to an instrument executed or first executed after the commencement of this Act, and as applied to any other instrument, chargeable under the law in force in India when such instrument was executed or, where several persons executed the instrument at different times, first executed."

8. Section 2(12) of the Stamp Act, 1899 deals with "executed" and "execution", use with reference to instruments, mean "signed" and "signature".

9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and Others v. Khandaka Jain Jewellers, (2007) 14 SCC 339, has held that the relevant date for valuation of property for the purposes of Stamp Act is the date of and the time of execution of the sale-deed. It is held that rates of property at the time when parties entered into agreement to sell or at the time when aggrieved party files suit for specific performance of contract, held, irrelevant. It is further held that at the time of registration, if there is undervaluation of property, the registering authority would send the same to the Collector for proper valuation of property. Sale and agreement to sell are two distinct features under Stamp Act. It is further held that High Court's opinion that at the time of registration, the value of property mentioned in the agreement to sell is relevant is not correct approach. Word "execution" read with section 17 mandates that the instrument has to be seen at the time when it is sought to be registered. Duration of litigation in obtaining a decree of specific performance of contract is not relevant.

10. In para 24, it is held that while interpreting a taxing statute, inconvenience of the parties is not to be seen. It has to be construed strictly. Hardship or equity have no role to play in its construction. "Actus curiae neminem gravabit" i.e. "no person shall suffer on account of litigation". Held, cannot weigh with the Court for interpreting the provisions of a taxing statute.

11. Similar view is taken by the Supreme Court in A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala, AIR 1957 SC 657 in the following terms:-

"29. ...... in construing fiscal statutes and in determining the liability of a subject to tax one must have regard to