Stamp Duty Is To Be Levied On Agreement To Sell Which Contains Recital Of Delivery Of Possession: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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