IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-2311-2026(O&M)

Date of decision: 11.03.2026 Bhupinder Singh ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Isher Singh & Another ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Parunjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiff against the order dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure P1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana whereby application filed by the defendants/respondents under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act for determining the correct stamp duty payable by the petitioner on the Agreement to Sell dated 11.12.2020 (Annexure P2), has been allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case in chronological order are as under: -

12.07.2021:- The petitioner had filed Civil Suit dated 12.07.2021 (Annexure P3) against the respondents/defendants seeking specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 11.12.2020 (Annexure P4) and permanent injunction.

06.05.2022:- The defendants had filed written statement dated 06.05.2022 (Annexure P4) to the said Civil Suit.

24.09.2025:- Thereafter, the respondents had filed application dated 24.09.2025 (Annexure P5) under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act for determining the correct stamp duty payable on the Agreement to Sell dated

11.12.2020.

18.10.2025:- The petitioner had filed reply dated 18.10.2025 (Annexure P6) to the above-said application of the respondents.

28.11.2025:- Vide impugned order dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure P1), the application (Annexure P5) filed by the respondents has been allowed.

3. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a perusal of the Agreement to Sell dated 11.12.2020 (Annexure P2) shows that it has been categorically stated therein that possession is still with the vendors. Learned counsel contends that in view of the fact that the possession of the suit property was still with the vendors i.e. the respondents, the petitioner could not have been called upon to file stamp duty. It is submitted that as per the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and the Punjab Stamp Rules, an Agreement to Sell without delivery of possession is chargeable only with a stamp duty of Rs.500/- under Article 23A or 5C of Schedule 1A. Petitioner had appropriately paid the stamp duty of Rs. 500/-, which is the legally requisite amount for an Agreement to Sell without possession under Article 23A / 5(c) of Schedule 1-A of the Punjab Stamp Rules. It is reiterated that from the Agreement, it is clear that the actual possession of the suit property was not transferred to the petitioner; and therefore, the petitioner was not liable to pay the stamp duty.

4. It is submitted that however, the Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, completely ignored the above factual matrix, including the explicit "Note" in the agreement, and the categoric admissions in the Respondents' Written Statement, and passed the impugned order dated 28.11.2025. The Ld. Trial Court erroneously held that Ex. P2 contains a recital of delivery of possession, deemed it a conveyance deed, and directed the Petitioner to pay deficient stamp duty along with an exorbitant penalty equivalent to ten times the deficiency by 08.12.2025.

5. Ld. Counsel contends that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the Respondents cannot blow hot and cold simultaneously. In their Written Statement, they vehemently pleaded that they reside in the property and that the Petitioner is not in possession. Yet, for the purpose of the Section 35 application, they argued the Petitioner was given possession. The Court erred in relying on the Respondents' contradictory and mala fide application.

6. It is further submitted that in any event, whether or not possession has been actually delivered to the petitioner is a mixed question of fact and law which can only be determined upon leading of evidence and conclusion of trial. It is contended that therefore, in the interregnum, impounding the document and i