Stamp Duty Is To Be Levied On Agreement To Sell Which Contains Recital Of Delivery Of Possession: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that when there in an agreement to sell to the effect that possession has been delivered, stamp duty is leviable on such document.Justice Alka Sarin observed,"It is trite that the document that is required to be registered and which contains a recital of delivery of possession would also require to be stamped as per the provisions of the Indian...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that when there in an agreement to sell to the effect that possession has been delivered, stamp duty is leviable on such document.
Justice Alka Sarin observed,
"It is trite that the document that is required to be registered and which contains a recital of delivery of possession would also require to be stamped as per the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as amended by the State of Punjab."
The Bench thus dismissed the revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) whereby an agreement to sell was impounded for want of stamp duty as a result of which the petitioner was directed to pay the amount of stamp duty along with the ten times penalty.
Reliance was placed on Avinash Kumar Chauhan vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra, 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 615, whereby the Supreme Court held that although ordinarily an agreement to sell would not be subject to payment of stamp duty which is payable on a sale deed, but having regard to the purpose and object it seeks to achieve the legislature thought it necessary to levy stamp duty on an instrument whereby possession has been transferred.
The instant case came up as a result of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land measuring 25 marlas filed by the plaintiff-petitioner. It was specifically stated in the plaint that possession of the suit property had been delivered to the plaintiff-petitioner on the date of the execution of the agreement to sell. The Trial court ordered the impounding of the agreement to sell, and the plaintiff-petitioner was directed to pay the deficit amount of stamp duty on the agreement along with ten times the penalty.
After hearing the submissions by the counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner, the court rejected the contentions raised by the counsel that no possession was given to the plaintiff-petitioner.
While rejecting the contention of the plaintiff-petitioner that he was not in possession of the suit property, the court held that there is a recital in the agreement to the effect that the possession has been delivered to him by the defendant-respondent on the date of execution of the agreement to sell and a specific averment made in the plaint states that the possession of the property stood delivered to the plaintiff-petitioner on a particular date.
In the present case, admittedly, there is a recital in the agreement to sell to the effect that possession has been delivered to the plaintiff-petitioner by the defendant-respondent on the date the agreement to sell was executed. Further, to the same effect are the pleadings by the plaintiff-petitioner. A specific averment has been made in the plaint that the possession of the property stood delivered to the plaintiff-petitioner on 07.10.2014.
Court further held that in the absence of any alternative prayer made by the plaintiff-petitioner that he must be delivered possession in case he was not found in it, the argument that he was not in possession of the suit property cannot be accepted.
In fact, a perusal of the plaint appended with the civil revision as Annexure P-1 would reveal that no alternative prayer has been made that the plaintiff-petitioner be delivered possession in case he was not found to be in possession of the suit property. Hence, the argument of learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that he was not in possession of the suit property cannot be accepted.
The court relied on Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 which states that the instruments not duly stamped are inadmissible in evidence, etc, along with the case of Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra [2009(1) RCR (Civil) 615] and held that the document required to be registered which contains a recital of delivery of possession would require to be stamped.
While upholding the impugned order, the court held that the same does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity which would warrant interference by this Court.
Keeping in view the law laid down, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court in impounding the agreement to sell and directing the plaintiff-petitioner to pay the deficit amount of stamp duty on the agreement to sell plus ten times of the penalty of the deficit amount of the stamp duty. The impugned order does not suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction which would warrant interference by this Court.
For the reasons mentioned above, the court dismissed the present civil revision for it being devoid of any merit.
Case Title: Bikram Singh VERSUS Charanjit Singh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 67
Click Here To Read/Download Order