9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 1031X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edule 1A of the Indian Stamp Act, the trial Court allowed the said application overruling the objection taken by the plaintiff-petitioner herein as to the permissibility of the said objection once the document is marked under Section 35 of the Act and held that the said document is insufficiently stamped and directed the plaintiff to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty on Ex.A1 or otherwise it was held that the document becomes inadmissible in evidence. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff carried the matter in revision before this Court. 3. The document recites that the possession of the Schedule mentioned property was previously delivered to the vendee. It is also stated therein that the entire sale consideration has already been received. 4. When the matter came up for admission before the learned single Judge, the Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision in M.A, Gafoor (supra) to contend that the document in question does not attract the provisions of Article 47-A of Schedule 1A of the Act. In the said decision, the suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale. On the date of the agreement, the plaintiff was a tenant under the defendant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mediate and that the buyer is given a right to seek possession in pursuance of the agreement of sale, therefore, with a view to plug the loopholes in payment of stamp duty by persons invoking the theory of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, the word "possession" has to be interpreted in tune with the explanation [ to Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of the Act as including possession pursuant to the agreement of sale and not restricted to possession that must immediately follow the execution of the agreement. The decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner therein Board of Revenue v. Somaraju, AIR 1926 Madras 1038 (FB) and T. Gurappa v. Naidu Ramana Reddy, 1993(1)ALT115 , were distinguished by the learned Judge as not relevant to the question on hand. 8. The decision in Mekapothulu Linga Reddy, (supra) was subsequently relied on by another learned single Judge in D. Ramachandra Rao v. R. Venkata Ramana, 1996(3)ALT725 . In the said case, the agreement was dated 30-3-1989 and possession was given at a later date viz., in April, 1990. In view of the admitted position that the plaintiff in that case was in possession pursua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rpretation of the said expressions, it would follow that an agreement containing specific recital of delivery of possession or indicating delivery of possession even in the past is liable for stamp duty as a 'sale' under the said Explanation. 10. In Mekapothula Linga Reddy (supra), the learned single Judge sought to derive support for his conclusion as regards the applicability of stamp duty under Article 47-A of Schedule 1A of the Act from Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. As already pointed, one need not look to any provision in other Acts especially in the interpretation of fiscal statutes like the Indian Stamp Act. In any case, Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act cannot have any direct bearing on the question at issue. The scope of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act is altogether different. It contemplates protection to a transferee in possession which varies from case to case. Excepting to this extent, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge cannot be faulted, as the delivery of possession has been endorsed on the document therein which falls within the second limb of the explanation. 11. Mohd. Gafoor (supra) is a case where an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f this Article, where in the case of agreement to sell an Immovable property, the possession of any Immovable property is transferred to the purchaser before the execution, or at the time of execution, or after the execution of such agreement without executing the conveyance in respect thereof, then such agreement to sell shall be deemed to be a conveyance and stamp duty thereon shall be leviable accordingly". Interpreting the said explanation, it was held: "The duty in respect of an agreement covered by the Explanation is leviable as if it is a conveyance. The conditions to be fulfilled are if there is an agreement to sell Immovable property and possession of such property is transferred to the purchaser before the execution or at the time of execution or subsequently without executing any conveyance in respect thereof, such an agreement to sell is deemed to be a "conveyance". In the event a conveyance is executed in pursuance of such agreement subsequently, the stamp duty already paid and recovered on the agreement of sale which is deemed to a conveyance shall be adjusted towards the total duty leviable on the conveyance. Now, in the present case, the agreement entered into cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
