Disposed

Grosu Muralikrishna v. Bijigam Siva Sankar

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Dec 2022CRP/474/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a revision petition regarding non-payment of stamp duty on a possessory agreement of sale, noted a subsequent registered sale deed. It directed the trial Court to examine whether the earlier agreement validly requires impounding despite the later registration.

What did the court decide?

Revision disposed; liberty granted to revision petitioner to seek trial Court to decide admissibility and stamp duty.

Grosu Muralikrishna Vs Bijigam Siva Sankar — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

¶2

Civil Revision Petition No.474 of 2019

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the letter dated 09.01.2019 addressed by the District Registrar, Gudur to the trial Court i.e. VI Additional District Judge, Nellore informing that since the stamp duty and penalty as demanded was not paid by the revision petitioner herein, the document sent by the Court for collection of stamp duty and penalty could not be impounded.

¶5

2. The facts leading to file the revision petition are briefly as follows:

¶6

The 1^st respondent filed a suit against the defendant for recovery of an amount basing on a promissory note. In that suit, I.A.No.323 of 2013 was filed for attachment of property of the 2^nd respondent before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC. The trial Court ordered attachment on 30.05.2013. Thereafter, the revision petitioner filed a claim petition under Order 38 Rule 10 CPC vide I.A.No.266 of 2014. In the said petition, the revision petitioner intended to file an unregistered possessory agreement of sale dated 17.04.2013 as evidence to show that in pursuance of the said agreement, another registered agreement of sale cum general power of attorney dated 17.06.2013 was executed. However, the revision petitioner filed petitions before the trial Court seeking the court to send both the documents to the Registrar concerned for impounding the documents and collect stamp duty and penalty. The District Registrar, Gudur addressed a letter No.G1/1063/2018 dated 09.01.2019 to the trial Court informing that

¶7

¶8

BSB, J C.R.P.No.474 of 2019

¶9

the agreement of sale-cum-general power of attorney executed on 17.06.2013 was registered on 18.06.2013 vide document No.1536 of 2013 and the same does not require any further stamp duty and penalty since sufficient stamp duty and registration fee were paid vide SBI, Vedayapalem branch challan No.981 dated 15.06.2013. Nextly, he addressed another letter bearing the same number and same date to the trial Court informing that the agreement of sale dated 17.04.2013 could not be impounded and resubmitted to the Court due to non-payment of deficit duty and penalty by the revision petitioner. This letter is now under challenge in the revision petition. It is pertinent to mention that the District Registrar, Gudur vide letter No.G1/1063/2018 dated 14.12.2018 gave a notice to the revision petitioner informing that the said agreement is chargeable with stamp duty of Rs.28,800/- under Article 47-A of Indian Stamp Act, but the instrument bears Rs.100/- stamp duty and thus there is a deficit stamp duty of Rs.28,700/- + penalty of Rs.2,87,000/-, totaling Rs.3,15,700/-.

¶10

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when once the agreement of sale has subsequently resulted in concluded sale which is duly registered and necessary stamp duty and registration fee are paid, the earlier document of agreement of sale is no more an instrument within the meaning of Section 2 of the Stamp Act for the purpose of collection of stamp duty and placed reliance on the decision of this High Court in the

¶11

¶12

BSB, J C.R.P.No.474 of 2019

¶13

case of V.Dharma Reddy and others Vs S.Hari Ram¹ , wherein it is held at

¶14

paras 6 and 7 are as follows:

¶15

“6. If it were to be a case where the respondent intended to rely upon the copy of the agreement of sale for the purpose of enforcing it, the objection raised on behalf of the petitioners can certainly be sustained. Section 35 of the Stamp Act prohibits admission of any “instrument” in evidence, unless, it is duly stamped. Hardly, there exists any doubt that an agreement of sale is an instrument within the meaning of sub-section (14) of Section 2 of the Stamp Act, in the normal parlance. However, it needs to be seen that for a document, to be treated as an instrument within the meaning of sub-section (14) of Section 2, a right or liability has to be created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished, or, recorded by it. It is only then the document needs to be treated as an instrument. Where, however, the document does not have any purpose to serve on account of subsequent events, it cannot be still treated as an instrument within the meaning of Section 2(14).

¶16

Agreement of sale, undoubtedly, creates rights and liabilities between the parties concerned. However, where it results in a sale deed, the purpose underlying the agreement cannot be said to be still subsisting even thereafter. Therefore, once a sale deed is executed, the agreement of sale preceding it cannot be treated as an instrument for the purpose of the Stamp Act.”

¶17

This point of argument has not been raised by the revision petitioner before the trial Court asking the trial Court to receive the agreement of sale dated 17.04.2013 in evidence and moreover, the revision petitioner himself

¶18

1 2004(5) ALD 600

¶19

¶20

BSB, J C.R.P.No.474 of 2019

¶21

asked the trail Court to send the document to the Registrar by filing an application to get it impounded, and now has taken ‘U’ turn and contends that it does not require any stamp duty or penalty in view of the subsequent registered document. Since the trail Court has not taken any view on the admissibility of the said document in the light of this kind of argument, this Court deems it fit to direct the trail Court to hear the parties on the admissibility of the agreement of sale dated 17.04.2013 in the context as to whether it requires any further stamp duty and penalty or not.

¶22

Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of giving liberty to the revision petitioner to seek the trail Court to decide, after hearing the parties, the admissibility of the agreement of sale dated 17.04.2013 in evidence in the context as to whether it requires any further stamp duty and penalty or not.

¶23

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶25

_____________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

¶26

Dt.14-12-2022 PNV

Grosu Muralikrishna v. Bijigam Siva Sankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Grosu Muralikrishna v. Bijigam Siva Sankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manepalli Anjaneyulu Vs Gudavalli Lakshmi Parvathi

Kanumuri Sarojini Devi Vs Kanumuri Anuradha Nagamani

Karnati Lakshminarayana Vs Karnati Venkateswarlu

M.R.Pradeep Kumar Vs S.Nanda Kishore

Devalla Veera Venkata Ravi Kumar, Vs M/s Kapil Chits (Kosta) Pvt.

G Jayalakshmi Vs M Bharathi