GOPI KRISHNA TRIVEDI versus SUDAMA PRASAD OJHA

Citation: [2008] 13 S.C.R. 10 · Decided: 01-09-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 13 S.C.R 10 
r\ 
GOPI KRISHNA TRIVEDI 
v. 
SUDAMA PRASAD OJHA 
(Civil Appeal No. 5414 of 2008) 
B 
SEPTEMBER 1, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ] 
Stamp Act, 1899: 
c 
s. 2(14)- "Instrument"- Impounding of- Document con-
taining terms and conditions of agreement for sale of immov-
able property - HELD.· High Court has rightly held that docu-
ment in question being an agreement for sale, stamp duty will 
have to be paid by treating the document to be an 'instrument' 
D as defined in s. 2(14). 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5414 
of 2008 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 6.11.2006 of 
E the High Court of Calcutta in C.O. No. 3122/2006 
R.C. Gubrele, K.R. Gupta, Vivek Sharma, Nanita Sharma, 
Satbir S. Pillania and Suresh Kumar Sharma for the Appellant. 
S.K. Bhattacharya for the Respondent. 
F 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Heard learned counsel for the 
parties. 
Leave granted. 
G 
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a 
learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court allowing the 
revision petition filed by the respondent. In a Suit for specific 
... 
performance of the contract for sale of immovable property, the 
H 
10 
GOPI KRISHNA TRIVEDI v. SUDAMA 
11 
PRASAD OJHA [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
present respondent took the stand that he had entered into an 
A 
oral agreement with the defendant, i.e. the present appellant 
for purchase of the Suit property for a consideration of 
Rs.6,01,000/-. Following the execution of the contract, an amount 
of Rs.3,51,000/- was stated to have been paid. It was followed 
by another payment of Rs.1, 11,618/-. The defendant acknowl-
B 
edged the factum of acceptance of part payment of the consid-
eration amount. When the Suit came up for hearing, the respon-
dent came up with the application for accepting certain docu-
ments, i.e. the documents containing the terms and conditions 
of agreement and certain rent receipts. The appellant took the c 
stand that these documents cannot be admitted because there 
was no payment of stamp duty. The Trial Court took the view 
that the document is nothing but a letter incorporating the terms 
and conditions of an agreement for sale of a property and the · 
receipts were just acknowledgment of the factum of acceptance 0 
of money. Accordingly, the Trial Court refused to impound the 
aforesaid documents. 
Challenging the order, a revision petition was filed before 
the High Court. 
r:: 
Reliance was placed before the High Court on a decision 
'-
of this Court in Brij Mohan and Ors. Vs. Sugra Begum and 
Ors. (1990 (4) sec 147) to contend that when the vital and 
fundamental terms of an agreement for sale of immovable prop-
erty were effected through an oral agreement, the written agree-
-1 
ment incorporating the terms and conditions of the oral agree-
F 
ment would be deemed to be a formal agreement only. Since 
no rights or liabilities have been created through the document 
incorporating the terms and conditions of oral agreement, it can-
not be called to be an instrument either. 
G 
The High Court, after considering the rival submissions 
and with reference to explanation appended to item No.5 of 
;.. 
Schedule 1-A of Stamp Duty on Instruments in West Bengal, 
concluded as follows: 
. 
''The purported letter contains all the terms and conditions 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
12 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 
of an agreement for sale of immovable property. What 
were the terms and conditions of the alleged oral 
agreement are not known. There is nothing on record to 
show that rights and interest had been created following 
execution of an oral agreement. What we find is the 
existence of a document incorporating of terms and 
conditions of an agreement for sale of an immovable 
property and receipts acknowledging receipts of 
consideration amount. The agreements containing terms 
and conditions for transfer of an immovable property, as 
such, are required to be properly stamped in terms of the 
recent amendment of Stamp Act in West Bengal. 
Adequate stamp not having been paid, the trial court is 
not right in making the observation that the documents in 
question are not to be impounded. Since it is the 
agreement for sale, stamp duty will have to be paid in 
terms of Schedule 1A as amended. Right and liability 
having been created or purported to have been created, 
transferred and extended or recorded, the documents in 
question will come withi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.