Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.48 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 36 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Indian Stamp Act, 1899
Dauluru Ramachandra Rao vs Bhogi Venkata Ramana on 12 August, 1996
In such an
event, the document deserves to be treated as agreement simplicitor,
notwithstanding the fact that possession of the subject-matter of the agreement
was delivered, otherwise than through an endorsement on the agreement itself.",
9
MSM,J
CRP No.3373 of 2018
and this Court also explained the words "followed by or evidencing
delivery of possession of the property agreed to be sold" and finally
concluded that when the document does not disclose delivery of
possession of the property either on the date of execution or subsequent
date, parties to the document are not liable to pay stamp duty and
penalty. If these principles are applied to the recitals in the document in
question, the revision petitioner need not pay stamp duty and penalty.
But, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Veena Hasmukh Jain5, based on
the amendment to Schedule I of Article 25 of explanation 1, which is
identical to Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of the Act, 1922, held that
when the possession of property was delivered under the agreement of
sale, it is liable to be treated as a sale for the purpose of payment of
stamp duty in terms of explanation to Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of
the Act, 1922, based on the principles laid down in the above judgment,
the learned Single Judge of this Court in D. Ramachandra Rao v.
B. Venkata Ramana11, and V.L. Narasimha Rao v. K.T. Pentaiah12
and M/s. Sri. Tirumala Housing (P) Ltd., Hyderabad7, and also
Division Bench of this Court in B. Ratnamala6, and two other
judgments rendered by the Karnataka High Court consistently held that
when possession of property was delivered under the agreement of sale,
it is liable for payment of stamp duty as if it is a sale, in view of the
Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of the Act, 1922. But, in the present case,
there is a reference about delivery of possession of property under the
earlier agreement of sale, which was cancelled later. But, the recital of
11
. 1996 (3) ALT 725
12
. AIR 2002 AP 218
10
MSM,J
CRP No.3373 of 2018
the document further discloses that they agreed to sell the plots and
share the sale proceeds proportionately, thus, it means, the purchaser is
in possession of property in pursuance of the earlier agreement, but not
under the agreement of sale, dated 09.09.2002. In such case, the
document in question cannot be treated as sale deed for the purpose of
payment of stamp duty and penalty in terms of explanation to Article
47-A of Schedule 1-A of the Act,1922. But, the trial Court on erroneous
appreciation of recitals of the agreement of sale, dated 09.09.2002,
issued such direction to pay stamp duty and penalty or otherwise to
reject the document if stamp duty is not paid within the time stipulated
in the order. The order is erroneous on the face of record for the
following three reasons:
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Avinash Kumar Chauhan vs Vijay Krishna Mishra on 17 December, 2008
8. Per contra, Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for
respondent No.2 - defendant No.3, supported the order in toto, while
contending that recitals of the agreement of sale, dated 09.09.2002
disclose the delivery of possession on the date of agreement itself,
1
. AIR 2008 AP 117
2
. 2004 (1) ALD 260
3
. AIR 2011 AP 1
4
MSM,J
CRP No.3373 of 2018
thereby it is required to be duly stamped in terms of Article 47-A of
Schedule 1-A of the Act, 1922, and when the document is admitted
without considering the objection, Court can exercise power under
Order XIII, Rule 3 of the Code to reject the document by placing
reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra4, Veena
Hasmukh Jain v. State of Maharashtra5, and the judgments rendered
by this Court in B. Ratnamala v. G. Rudramma6, M/s. Sri. Tirumala
Housing (P) Ltd., Hyderabad v. M/s. GPR Housing (P) Ltd.,
Hyderabad7, and the judgments rendered by the Karnataka High Court
in Sri J. Prakash v. Smt. M.T. Kamalamma8, M/s. Kapoor
Constructions v. Leela Nagaraj9, and the judgment rendered by the
Madras High Court in Balakrishnan v. Chandrasekharan10. On the
basis of the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments, the learned
counsel for respondent No.2 sought to sustain the order passed by the
trial Court and dismiss the present revision.