The main legal point established in the judgment is that the certification/endorsement of the District Registrar/Collector regarding the collection of stamp duty is conclusive proof, and the Court cannot (re)impound the document on any ground, including improper collection of stamp duty.

ORDER :

N. TUKARAMJI, J.

This Revision is directed against the order dated 12.09.2019 in I.A.No.436 of 2019 in I.A.No.23 of 2017 in C.O.S.No.1 of 2017 on the file of the Judge, Commercial Court-cum-XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad whereby the first defendant sought for impounding the suit agreement on the ground that the District Registrar had improperly assessed and collected the deficit stamp duty and penalty under an act of fraud, misrepresentation and bribery.

2(a) The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 24.10.2008. At the instance of the respondent/first defendant vide I.A.No.23 of 2017, the suit agreement was forwarded to the District Registrar of Stamps, Hyderabad for impounding and collection of deficit stamp duty and penalty in I.A.No.23 of 2017.

(b) The revision petitioner/first defendant in the present petition contended that in the first instance the District Registrar in the letter dated 04.06.2018 bearing No.5875/E1/imp-2017 had appraised the dues on the entire sale consideration of Rs.7,50,00,000/- at 5%, and fixed the stamp duty at Rs.37,50,000/- and the penalty of Rs.45,00,000/-. However, the first respondent/plaintiff had managed, and submitted a representation dated 24.10.2018 stating that the possession of the property in part performance of the suit agreement was not delivered. Thereupon, the District Registrar issued another letter reducing the stamp duty to Rs.7,50,000/- and penalty of Rs.30,00,000/- and collected the same. This act of scaling down the stamp duty and penalty is glaringly reflecting the fraudulent misrepresentation and bribery especially as the recitals of the suit agreement are specifying the delivery of possession of the property.

(c) Therefore, the suit agreement is liable for the stamp duty as sale agreement with delivery of possession as per 47-A & Schedule-IA of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short ‘the Act’). Thus, the suit agreement shall be impounded to address the fraud and deficit stamp duty and for collection of the due stamp duty and penalty as per the first letter of District Registrar dated 04.06.2018, else the suit agreement shall not be received in evidence.

3. The first respondent/plaintiff in counter disputed the maintainability of the petition as the deficit stamp duty and penalty was already collected by the District Registrar. Additionally pleaded that erroneous fixation of the stamp duty in the first instance was queried, on that the competent authority after due hearing and considering the aspects that only 5800 square feet out of total extent on different floors was given in possession but the same was not in direct nexus with the suit agreement, adjudicated the stamp duty and penalty. Howsoever, the petitioner/first defendant has no locus standi or any role in the process. Thus, the petition itself is misconceived and prayed for dismissal.

4. The trial Court in the impugned order while dismissing the petition, observed that collection of the deficit stamp duty is the prerogative of the District Registrar and alleged bribery cannot be considered as it is beyond the purview of the suit and the suit agreement cannot be impounded to collect the stamp duty. However, the petitioner/first defendant may avail remedies with the authorities.

5. During hearing, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterated the petition pleadings and vehemently contended that in the impugned order the trial Court expressed its inability to rectify the patent fraud and bribery and deliberately ignored these aspects to support the cause of the first respondent/plaintiff against the responsibility to impound and to collect the deficit stamp duty on the document. Thus, prayed for allowing the revision.

6. In support of the claim, the petitioner placed reliance on the authority B. Rathnamala v. G. Rudramma, AIR 2000 A.P. 167. In B. Rathnamala (1st supra) a Division Bench of this Court