Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri T V K Satyanarayana, Vizianagaram ... vs Sri T V Srinivasa Rao, Vizianagaram Dist ... on 5 February, 2021
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1679 of 2016
ORDER:
This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 11.02.2016 passed in O.S.No.155 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District, whereby the Court below imposed Rs.84,000/- as stamp duty and penalty on a receipt dated 03.08.1991 basing on the market value existing in 2005 and also imposed penalty of Rs.5,70,20,040/- on the document styling as release deed dated 26.02.1992, basing on the market value existing on the date of presentation of the document into the Court i.e. 2014.
2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that originally the plaintiff, who is 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.155 of 2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties into four equal shares and deliver 1/4th share to the plaintiff by metes and bounds, to render the accounts for the profits in 1/4th share with interest at 24% p.a. The revision petitioner/1st defendant filed written statement and was contesting the suit. He also filed additional written statement.
3. The plaintiff earlier filed C.R.P.No.364 of 2016 before this Court challenging the order dated 28.12.2015, whereby the Court below passed an order to collect and remit stamp duty and penalty in respect of unstamped documents filed by the respondents / defendants. This Court has disposed of the said revision by order dated 29.01.2016 observing that:-
2
"A perusal of the office note put up by the office of the Court below, apparently no specific order has been passed with regard to collection of stamp duty and payment of penalty in tune with the calculation memo filed by the petitioner/plaintiff and the objection raised by the plaintiff. It also does not show whether the calculation memo filed by the plaintiff as considered or not?
In view of the above facts and circumstances and the submissions made by the learned senior counsel, I am of the view that before deciding the issue of collection of stamp duty and payment of penalty imposed, the calculation memo filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff needs to be properly considered."
4. After the revision was disposed of, the Court below assessed the stamp duty basing on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Midia Anasuyamma and another Vs. Choppela Lakshmamma1 and basing on the market value existing at the time of execution of the document. The Court below assessed the penalty as per the market value as on the date of presentation of the document into the Court. While assessing the stamp duty on receipt dated 03.08.1981, stamp duty was levied at Rs.1,200/- by taking the market value of the document in the year 1991-92. But when it comes to penalty the Court below directed the petitioner to pay penalty of Rs.84,000/- on the receipt dated 03.08.1981 holding that the same was presented into the Court in the year 2005. In the same manner with regard to document titled as release deed dated 26.02.1992, the Court below assessed the stamp duty of Rs.39,270/-, whereas coming to the penalty, the Court below assessed the same at Rs.5,70,20,040/- by observing that the date of presentation of the same into the Court is in the year 2014. Assailing the same, the present revision has been filed. 1 1991 (1) ALT 430 3
5. Heard Sri S.S.Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and though M/s Bharadwaj Associates filed caveat on behalf of the 1st respondent, none appeared on his behalf.
6. Sri S.S.Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that stamp duty and penalty on any document has to be levied basing on the market value existing as on the date of the document, but not as on the date of presentation of the said document into the Court.
7. Perused the record and the judgment of this Court in Midia Anasuyamma's case (supra). A perusal of the order passed by the Court below, prima facie appears that the Court below could not understand the ratio laid down by this Court in a proper perspective. In Midia Anasuyamma's case, while dealing with the question as to whether levy of stamp duty and penalty on an instrument placing reliance in earlier judgments in Narayanan Chetti Vs. Karuppathan [(1881) ILR 3 Mad 251] and in A.Chandrasekhar Vs. R.Narasimha Reddy (1990 (1) ALT 264), the Division Bench held that the date of execution of document is relevant for the purpose of stamp duty. The Division Bench further placed reliance on the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in Nanga Vs. Dhannalal (AIR 1962 Rajasthan 62), wherein it was held that the stamp duty payable will be according to the law in force on the date of execution. Finally, the Division Bench held that alternatively, it will be open to the first defendant, if she is so advised, to pay the necessary stamp duty as per law in force on 4 04.09.1959. So far as penalty is concerned, it will be the penalty payable on the date of the presentation of the document.
8. The Court below while placing reliance on the last paragraph of the judgment misunderstood the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court and directed the revision petitioner to pay the penalty basing on the market value existing as on the date of presentation of the document.
9. Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 reads thus:
35. Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, etc.--No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped:
Provided that--
(a) any such instrument [shall], be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable, or, in the case of an instrument insufficiently stamped, of the amount required to make up such duty, together with a penalty of five rupees, or, when ten times the amount of the proper duty or deficient portion thereof exceeds five rupees, of a sum equal to ten times such duty or portion;
(b) where any person from whom a stamped receipt could have been demanded, has given an unstamped receipt and such receipt, if stamped, would be admissible in evidence against him, then such receipt shall be admitted in evidence against him, then such receipt shall be admitted in evidence against him on payment of a penalty of one rupee by the person tendering it;
(c) where a contract or agreement of any kind is effected by correspondence consisting of two or more letters and any one of the letters bears the proper stamp, the contract or agreement shall be deemed to be duly stamped;
(d) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in evidence in any proceeding in a Criminal Court, other than a proceeding under Chapter XII or Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898);5
(e) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in any Court when such instrument has been executed by or on behalf of the Government or where it bears the certificate of the Collector as provided by section 32 or any other provision of this Act.
10. Section 35 (a) indicates that in case deficit stamp duty exceeds rupees five, ten times the stamp duty or portion has to be levied as penalty. In fact, the instructions given by the Full Bench are clear and unambiguous. The deficit duty has to be determined on the market value existing as on the date of execution of the document and penalty has to be levied on the deficit stamp duty that was determined, but not on the market value as on the date of presentation of the document into the Court. Therefore, the order impugned warrants interference of this Court and it deserves to be set aside.
11. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order dated 11.02.2016 passed in O.S.No.155 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court. The Court below shall determine the penalty on the documents in question as per the law laid down by this Court in Midia Anasuyamma's case (supra). No order as to costs.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
___________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 5th February, 2021 PVD 6 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ALLOWED CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1679 of 2016 5th February, 2021 PVD