$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on:01.12.2025 Judgment pronounced on: 10.12.2025 + FAO(OS) 147/2016 and CM APPL. 18284/2016 DK JAIN (SINCE DECEASED THR HIS LEGAL HEIRS)

.....Appellant Through: Mr. Ankit Jain, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Siddharth Mullick and Mr.

Wish Kesarwani, Advocates.

versus CS AGARWAL AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gorang Gupta and Mr.

Harsh Gupta, Advocates for R-

1 Mr. Arjun Syal, Mr. Raghuveer Kapur and Mr. Sagar Aggarwal, Advocates for R-2.

+ FAO(OS) 148/2016 and CM APPL. 18455/2016 NIRMAL JAIN .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ankit Jain, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Siddharth Mullick and Mr.

Wish Kesarwani, Advocates.

versus CS AGARWAL AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gorang Gupta and Mr.

Harsh Gupta, Advocates for R-

1 Mr. Arjun Syal, Mr. Raghuveer Kapur and Mr. Sagar Aggarwal, Advocates for R-2.

+ LPA 306/2016 and CM APPL. 18437/2016 NIRMAL JAIN .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ankit Jain, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Siddharth Mullick and Mr.

Wish Kesarwani, Advocates.

versus CS AGARWAL AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gorang Gupta and Mr.

Harsh Gupta, Advocates for R-

1 Mr. Arjun Syal, Mr. Raghuveer Kapur and Mr. Sagar Aggarwal, Advocates for R-2.

+ LPA 308/2016 and CM APPL. 18446/2016 DK JAIN .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ankit Jain, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Siddharth Mullick and Mr.

Wish Kesarwani, Advocates.

versus CS AGARWAL AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gorang Gupta and Mr.

Harsh Gupta, Advocates for R-

1 Mr. Arjun Syal, Mr. Raghuveer Kapur and Mr. Sagar Aggarwal, Advocates for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. The present four Appeals, FAO(OS) 147/2016, FAO(OS) No. 148/2016, LPA No. 306/2016 and LPA 308/2016, assail the correctness of a common judgment dated 15.03.2016 passed by learned Single Judge in CS(OS) No. 2439/2009 & connected matters [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Order‟], whereby the learned Single Judge set aside two orders of the Collector of Stamps determining the stamp duty and penalty payable on two Agreements to Sell dated 11.03.2008 executed by the vendors in favour of the present Respondents.

2. Since all four Appeals arise out of the same factual matrix, involve substantially the same parties, and impugn the same Impugned Order, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The central issue which arises for consideration in this batch of Appeals is whether the Respondents, namely Mr. C.S. Agarwal and Ms. Kavita Agarwal, were liable to pay stamp duty (along with penalty) on the basis of (i) the Agreement-cum-Possession Letters dated 07.08.2006, read conjointly with (ii) the Agreements to Sell dated 11.03.2008. The controversy turns on whether these documents, when examined together in their true legal effect and substance, constitute a transaction falling within the ambit of Article 23A of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (as applicable to Delhi), thereby attracting stamp duty on an “agreement to sell accompanied by delivery of possession.”

STATUTORY BACKDROP

4. By virtue of amendment introduced through Act 48 of 2001, Article 23A was inserted in Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [hereinafter referred to as „IS Act‟], which reads as under-

―23A. CONVEYANCE IN THE NATURE OF PART PERFORMANCE - Contracts for the transfer of immovable property in the nature of part performance in any Union Territory under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882‖ – Ninety per cent of the duty as a Conveyance (No.23).‖

5. In effect, the legislative amendment advances the stage at which substantial stamp duty becomes payable. The payment of 90% of the stamp duty ordinarily leviable on a conveyance deed stands statutorily shifted from the time of eventual execution of the sale deed to the anterior point of execution of an agreement that is in the nature of part performance within the meaning of Section 53A o