LexAVINASH KUMAR CHAUHAN versus VIJAY KRISHNA MISHRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 944
AVINASH KUMAR CHAUHAN
v.
VIJAY KRISHNA MISHRA
(Civil Appeal No. 7350 of 2008)
DECEMBER 17, 2008
[S.8. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]
Stamp Act, 1899 - ss. 33 and 35 and Article 23 of
Schedule 1A (as substituted by M.P. Act No. 19 of 1989) --
C Execution of sale deed - Execution whereof statutorily barred
- Suit by the vendee for recovery of consideration amount -
Reliance on the conveyance deed which was not registered
- Document impounded, being not duly stamped - Held:
Provision of ss. 33 and 35 are applicable, even if the
: unregistered document sought to be admitted in evidence is
D for collateral purpose - The purpose for which reliance is
placed on the document is not relevant for applicability of the
provisions - s. 35 rules out applicability of s. 49 of Registration
Act - On facts, the document rightly impounded - Registration
E
Act, 1908 - s. 49.
Respondent-a member of Scheduled Tribe sold his
immovable property to appellant. Appellant paid the
consideration amount for the same, and respondent gave
the possession of the property to the appellant. However,
the permission for such transfer was not granted.
F Appellant filed a suit for recovery of the consideration
amount. He relied on the agreement which was sought
to be registered as a sale deed. As the document was not
duly stamped, the court impounded the same. The
challenge against the order was not entertained by High
G Court.
H
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that
since the unregistered sale deed was sought to be put
in evidence only for the purpose of recovery. of the
consideration amount i.e. for collateral purpose, the
944
•
_)-
AVINASH KUMAR CHAUHAN v. VIJAY KRISHNA MISHRA
945
...
provisions of ss. 33 and 35 of Stamp Act, shall not be
A
'
attracted.
A
I
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
"""'
--1.
HELD:1.1. The Parliament has, in Section 35 of Stamp
Act, used the words "for any purpose whatsoever". Thus,
B
the purpose for which a document is sought to be
admitted in evidence or the extent thereof would not be
a relevant factor for not invoking the provision. The land,
in the instant case, is situated in a Scheduled Area.
j
Execution of a deed of conveyance in respect of the land
situated in the schedule.d area is statutorily b~rred. All c
transactions can be effected only upon obtaining the
permission of the Collector in terms of the provisions of
Section 165 (6) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959. An
instrument was executed. By reason of such an
instrument not only the entire amount of consideration
D
was paid but possession of the property had also been
transferred. [Paras 12, 13 and 14] [953-C-F]
"
1.2. By reason of the explanation appended to Article
. _,
23 of Schedule IA of the Stamp Act as inserted by M.P .
Act 19 of 1989 a legal fiction has been created. Although
E
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
F
transferred. [Para 15] [954-C-D]
{
1.3. The possession of the property had been
delivered in favour of the appellant. He has, thus, been
exercising some right in or over the land in question.
Although the agreement was not registered, but
G
registration of the document has nothing to do with the
validity thereof as provided for under the provisions of
the Registration Act, 1908. In the instant case, by reason
-'(
of the statutory interdict, no transfer at all is permissible.
I
Even transfer of possession is also not permissible.
[Paras 16 and 19] [954-E-F]
H
946
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 17 S.C.R.
A
Pandey Oraon v. Ram Chander Sahu 1992 Supp (2)
SCC 77 and Amrendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati
and Ors. 2004 (10) SCC GS, referred to.
-
1.4. Section 33 of Stamp Act casts a statutory
obligation on all the authorities to impound a document.
B The court being an authority to receive a document in
evidence is bound to give effect thereto.· The
unregistered deed of sale was an instrument which
required payment of the stamp duty applicable to a deed
of conveyance. Adequate stamp duty admittedly was not
C paid. The court, therefore,. was empowered to pass an
order in terms of Section 35 of Stamp Act. [Paras 17 and
18) [954-F-H]
1.5. It is not correct to say tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.