SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 488

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Sri Subba Reddy Satti, J
KOTA GANTA RAO – Appellant
Versus
KAMINENI ANJANEYULU (died) – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2848 OF 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri Paladugu Ganesh
For the Respondents: ---

Agreements evidencing delivery of possession are liable for stamp duty as conveyances under the Stamp Act.

Headnote:The case involves the interpretation of the Indian Stamp Act, specifically Article 47-A regarding stamp duty on agreements of sale. The appellant contested the requirement of stamp duty on a possessory sale agreement dated 8-11-1996. The court found that since the agreement included specifications of possession delivery, it deemed such an agreement as requiring stamp duty. The court emphasized that the agreement was fundamentally a conveyance due to the nature of possession delivery involved in the transaction. The result was the dismissal of the civil revision petition.

Table of Content
1. plaintiff's suit for specific performance based on possessory sale agreements. (Para 1 , 2 , 4)
2. arguments related to stamp duty and receipt of agreements. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 8)
3. legal interpretations regarding delivery of possession in agreements. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. court's final ruling on the necessity of stamp duty for the agreement. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
5. conclusion of case dismissal at the admission stage. (Para 15)

ORDER

1st Plaintiff in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 28.11.2022 in O.S.No.101 of 2009 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

2. Plaintiffs filed suit O.S.No.101 of 2009 against the defendants seeking specific performance of possessory sale agreements dated 08.11.1996, 12.02.1997, 29.01.1997, 28.09.1996, 22.12.1996, 14.12.1996, 24.11.1996, 24.11.1996, 24.11.1996, 14.12.1996, 30.10.1996, 30.10.1996, 15.11.1996, 03.01.1996, 24.10.1996, 29.01.1997 and 10.11.1996 respectively etc.

3. Defendants by filing written statement are contesting the suit.

4. P.W.1 filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination along with possessory agreement of sale dated 08.11.1996. Trial Court by docket order dated 29.11.2022 came to the conclusion that document dated 08.11.1996 is liable for stamp duty and penalty and hence, declined to receive the same. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed.

5. Heard Paladugu Ganesh, learned counsel for petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that sale agreement is in dispute and hence, stamp duty need not be paid. He would also submit that suit is filed for specific performance of agreement of sale date 08.11.1996 and hence the agreement of sale can be received for collateral purpose. He would further submit that though possession was delivered under the agreement of sale dated 8-11-1996, according to learned counsel the document can be treated as simple agreement and necessary stamp duty till be paid after decree when the document is presented before the Sub Registrar for registration. Thus, he would contend that unless the suit is decreed, no stamp duty need be paid on the document dated 08.11.1996.

7. Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the document dated 08.11.1996 requires stamp duty under Schedule I-A of Article 47-A of the Stamp Act, 1899?

8. The document dated 08.11.1996, as per the nomenclature, possessory agreement of sale. Recitals in the document, disclose that schedule property is handed over on the date of execution of agreement i.e. 08.11.1996. The agreement dated 08.11.1996 was scribed on stamp paper worth Rs.101/-. Whether the agreement of sale with possession requires stamp duty and if so what the stamp duty as per the provisions of the Stamp Act is to be considered.

9. It is appropriate to extract the explanation to Schedule I- A of Article 47-A of the Stamp Act, 1899, which reads as follows:

Explanation-I: An agreement to sell followed by or evidencing delivery of possession of the property agreed to be sold shall be chargeable as a "sale" under this article:

Provided that, where subsequently a sale deed is executed in pursuance of an agreement of sale as aforesaid or in pursuance of an agreement referred to in clause (B) of Article 6, the stamp duty, if any, already paid or recovered on the agreement of sale shall be adjusted towards the total duty leviable on the sale deed.”

10. The Division Bench of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in B.Ratnamala Vs. G.Rudramma , AIR 2000 AP 167 = 1999 (6) ALT 59. while answering reference held thus:

“9. While considering the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act , it has to be borne in mind that the said Act being a fiscal statute, plain language of the section as per its natural meaning is the true guide. No inferences, analogies or any presumptions can have any place. As the incidence of duty is on the execution of the deed, regard must, therefore, be had only to the terms of the document. Thus the main question that falls for consideration is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top