Supreme Court of India
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Pramod Kumar Gupta on 17 December, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 401, 1990 SCR SUPL. (3) 547, AIR 1991 SUPREME COURT 401, 1991 (1) SCC 633, 1991 AIR SCW 39, (1990) 4 JT 787 (SC), 1990 (4) JT 787, 1991 (1) UJ (SC) 495, 1991 UJ(SC) 1 495, 1991 (1) ALL CJ 344, (1991) 1 ORISSA LR 178, (1991) 20 DRJ 89, (1991) 1 PUN LR 26, (1991) 1 RRR 270, (1991) 43 DLT 149
Author: L.M. Sharma
Bench: L.M. Sharma, R.M. Sahai
PETITIONER:
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
PRAMOD KUMAR GUPTA
DATE OF JUDGMENT17/12/1990
BENCH:
SHARMA, L.M. (J)
BENCH:
SHARMA, L.M. (J)
SAHAI, R.M. (J)
CITATION:
1991 AIR 401 1990 SCR Supl. (3) 547
JT 1990 (4) 787 1990 SCALE (2)1272
ACT:
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957: Section 147--Levy
of duty on transfer of immovable property--Expression 'i-
nstrument of sale of immovable property'--Scope of--Word
'instrument'--Whether has the same connotation as under the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXI, Rules
92-94--Auction sale--Certificate of sale issued by Civil
Court--Whether instrument of sale--Whether chargeable to
duty under section 147 of the Municipal Corporation Act,
1957 --Object of the sale certificate explained.
Indian Stamp Act, 1899: Section 2 Clause (10) and
(14)'Conveyance' and 'instrument'--Meaning of.
HEADNOTE:
The respondent purchased the property in question at an
auction sale held in execution of a decree of the Civil
Court. The sale was confirmed under Order XXI, Rule 92 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the High Court direct-
ed issuing of a sale certificate under Rule 94. On the
question of payment of duty the respondent contended that no
duty was chargeable under section 147 of the Municipal
Corporation Act, 1957. A single judge of the High Court
accepted his plea and directed payment of only stamp duty
(under the Stamp Act, 1899) without any surcharge under
section 147 of the 1957 Act for issuance of the sale certif-
icate. On appeal the judgment of the single judge was con-
firmed by a Division Bench of the High Court. Hence this
appeal by Municipal Corporation.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: 1. The expression 'instrument of sale of immovable
property' under section 147 of the Municipal Corporation
Act, 1957 means a document effecting transfer. The title to
the property in question has to be conveyed under the docu-
ment. The document has to be a vehicle for the transfer of
the right, title and interest, A document merely stating as
a fact that transfer has already taken place cannot be
included within this expression. A paper which is recording
a fact or is
548
attempting to furnish evidence of an already concluded
transaction under which title has already passed cannot be
treated to be such an instrument. [550B-D]
2. The provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 make it clear that the title to the property
put on auction sale passes by force of law when the sale is
held and the transfer becomes final when an order under Rule
92 confirming it is made. By the certificate issued under
Rule 94, the Court is formally declaring the effect of the
same and is not extinguishing or creating title. The object
of issuance of such a Certificate is to avoid any controver-
sy with respect to the identity of the property sold, and of
the purchaser thereof as also of the date when the sale
becomes absolute. The use of past tense in the rule stating
that the sale "became" absolute, is consistent with this
interpretation. The Certificate of sale, therefore, cannot
be termed to be an instrument of sale so as to attract
section 147 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. [550E-H;
551A-D]
JUDGMENT: