What is the stamp duty implication of a consent decree that asserts pre-existing rights versus one that creates new rights? What is the applicability of the Mukesh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another judgment to a partition suit where parties claim inheritance?

Key Points: - The court is clarifying whether a compromise decree in a partition suit, based on a Terms of Settlement, requires stamp duty (!) (!) . - The suit was for partition of properties left by the deceased father of the plaintiff and defendants (!) (!) . - The parties entered into a Terms of Settlement during the pendency of the suit, agreeing on the distribution of movable and immovable properties (!) (!) . - The plaintiff and defendants are brothers and heirs of the deceased (!) . - The settlement outlines the specific properties each party is entitled to (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The parties agreed that the suit should be decreed based on the Terms of Settlement (!) (!) . - The parties cited the Supreme Court judgment in Mukesh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, arguing that a consent decree asserting pre-existing rights does not operate as a conveyance and does not require stamp duty (!) (!) . - The court distinguished the present case from Mukesh (supra) because in this case, the parties acquired their rights by inheritance after the father's death, and did not have pre-existing rights over the property prior to the settlement (!) (!) (!) . - The court found that the Mukesh judgment was distinguishable, and therefore, stamp duty is chargeable as the consent decree does not merely assert pre-existing rights but rather formalizes the distribution of inherited property (!) .

What is the stamp duty implication of a consent decree that asserts pre-existing rights versus one that creates new rights?

What is the applicability of the Mukesh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another judgment to a partition suit where parties claim inheritance?