The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order impounding three registered agreements of sale for deficit stamp duty. The court held that registration does not cure non-stamping under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
l32s2l
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2897 OF 2024
Petition under Article 227 ot the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the Docket Order dated 0742-2024 made in O.S. No. 94 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge at Jangaon.
Between:
Lega Ram Mohan Reddy, S/o. Late Narayana Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Business, R/o. FIat No. 303, Vyshnavi Castle, R.K. Puram, Saroor Nagar, Hyderabad
...Revision Petitioner / Plaintiff
AND
...Respondent / Defendants
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the HighCourt may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O. S. No. 94 of 2018 on the file of theCourt of Principal District Judge, Jangaon, pending disposal of the above revision.
Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri B Vijay Simha Reddy
Counsel for the Respondents : Sri Ashok Reddy Kanathala
The Court made the following Order :
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLINANDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2897Of 2024
ORDER:
Heard Sri B. Vijay Simha Reddy, learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of the revisionpetitioner/plaintiffand learned counset appearing on behalfofthe respondents/defenda nts.
PERUSED THE RECORD:
"The objected (3) Registered Agreement ofSale Deeds are liable to be impounded. Theplaintiff is directed to get impounded the said objectedthree (3) registered agreement of sale deeds whichare filed by the plaintiff, if he intended to mark throughPW.1. The objections raised by defendant No.2 issustainable."
)
SN, .I cRP 2897 2024
4- The revision petitioner in the present civir Revision petition filed O.S.No.94 of 2Ot8 and the respondents, who are defendants in O.S.No.94 of 2018, took objection for marking of the documents namely (1). Registered Agreement of Sale_Cum_ General Power of Attorney with possession bearing No.3271200g, dated 28.01.2008, (2). Registered Agreement of Sale_cum_ General Power of Attorney with possession bearing No.a29O/20O7 dated 25.08.2OO7, (3). Registered Agreement of Sale-Cum_ General Power of Attorney with possession bearing No.3g92 of 2007 dated 26.07.2OO7, as documents on their behalf through PW.1 by taking objection that the parties to the documents are liable to pay the stamp duty, since, the agreements are with delivery of possession and they have to be treated as sale deeds for collection of stamp duty. Therefore, the saicl documents cannot be marked and further that the parties have paid 1olo value of the property as stamp duty instead of 60lo as per Article 47-A of schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act. The petitioner herein, who is the plaintiff in suit has to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty before marking the same. The Court below ylde its order dated 07.02.2024 in O.S.No.94 of 2018 dealt with the subject issue and passed orders observing that the objected
) )
l )
3
SN'J cRP2891'024
three (3) registeredagreement of Sale Deeds are liable to be impounded as contendedby the respondentsin the present CRP and thepetitioner/plaintiff was directed to get impounded the said objected three(3) registered agreementof saledeeds,which are filed by thepetitioner/plaintiff, who intendsto mark the same as PW.1. Further,the Court hetd that the obiectionsas r nd nda N na f n m t r 9 No 4ot o t ereu n er:
"5. As per law laid downin (2Ot4) 1 ALD 83 SC in Omprakash vsLaxminarayan and others, Section 35 of IndianStampAct, 1899,contemplates that:
"No instrument chargeablewith duty shallbe admitted in evide ncefor anypurposeby any person having by law or consentof partiesauthority to receive evidence, or sha{lbe acted upon, registered or authenticated byany such personor by any public officer, unless suchinstrumentisduly stamped".
4
I
SN, J cRP 2897 2024
documents produced in the evidence. In view of the Sections 33, 35, 3g of Indian Stamp Act, when a document is produced into Court not duly stamped, the Court is bound to impound the same or send it to the Collector for recovery of deficit stamp duty and penalty. The Hon,ble High Court gave directions to all the presiding Officers of the Court..,
Miscellaneous petitions, il1ny, pending, shall stand closed.
Sd/- P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASS RAR //TRUE COPYII
J
CER
To,
VA/gh
HIGH COURT
DATED:2211112024
ORDER
o g.IHE 5
o f
1) I
20 rfi zw I
t
/)
DLTaHc<br>
CRP.No.2897 of 2024
DISMISSING THE CRP
W
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impounding of registered agreements of sale due to deficit stamp duty under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act was illegal or improper.
Whether registration can cure the defect of deficit stamp duty making documents admissible in evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Omprakash vs Laxminarayan and othersExplained¶38
(2004) 1 ALD 83 SC in Omprakash vs Laxminarayan and others
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Lega Ram Mohan Reddy
Manga Laxmi
Manga Siddi Ramulu
Manga Yellamma
Chamarthi Seetha
Surepalli Nanda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
