LexMUKESH versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1210 : 2024 INSC 1026 Mukesh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 14808 of 2024) 20 December 2024 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was right in holding that the compromise decree in favor of the appellant needed registration and stamp duty was also required to be paid for mutation of the subject land. Headnotes† Registration Act, 1908 – s.17(2)(vi) – Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – s.3; Schedule I or I-A – Whether the appellant satisfied the conditions enumerated in s.17(2)(vi), 1908 Act and the compromise decree in his favor only asserting his pre-existing rights over the subject land required no registration and was not chargeable with stamp duty: Held: s.17(1), 1908 Act specifies the documents for which Registration is compulsory – s.17(2) carves out the exceptions and the documents/instruments enumerated therein are not compulsorily registerable – The exemption for decree or order of the Court is covered under s.17(2)(vi), 1908 Act with a rider – Suit was filed by the appellant seeking a declaration asserting his pre-existing right, title and interest and for permanent injunction claiming ownership and continuous possession over the subject land – Thereafter, in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties, the suit was decreed in favour of the appellant – Hence, through the compromise decree in question, the appellant did not obtain any new right, but he asserted his pre-existing right/title/interest over the subject land of which he was in continuous possession – Also, the plea that the compromise decree was by way of collusion is rejected – Thus, the appellant satisfied the conditions enumerated in s.17(2)(vi), 1908 Act and hence, the subject land acquired by him * Author [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1211 Mukesh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. by way of compromise decree, required no registration – Further, s.3, Indian Stamp Act, 1899 provides the instruments which are chargeable with duty – Stamp duty is not chargeable on an order/ decree of the Court as the same does not fall within the documents mentioned in Schedule I or I-A read with s.3, Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Though the Collector of Stamps determined the stamp duty for the subject land as per Article 22 of Schedule IA, 1899 Act, which states about conveyance, in this case, the compromise decree does not fall under the instruments mentioned in the Schedule and it only asserted the pre-existing rights – Therefore, the consent decree will not operate as conveyance as no right was transferred and the same does not require any payment of stamp duty – Since the appellant only asserted the pre-existing right and no new right was created through the consent decree, the document pertaining to mutation of the subject land was not liable for stamp duty – Impugned order upholding the orders of the authorities below, set aside – Mutation of the revenue records in respect of the subject land be made in favour of the appellant. [Paras 7, 11, 13, 14] Registration Act, 1908 – s.17(2)(vi) – Exception under – Conditions to be satisfied for – Enumerated. [Para 10] Title – Revenue records – Whether revenue records are documents of title: Held: No, revenue records are not documents of title – Any entry therein does not ipso facto confer ownership. [Para 11] Case Law Cited Mohd. Yusuf v. Rajkumar [2020] 3 SCR 649 : (2020) 10 SCC 264; Ravinder Kaur Grewal and Others v. Manjit Kaur and Others [2019] 11 SCR 74 : (2019) 8 SCC 729; Khushi Ram v. Nawal Singh [2021] 4 SCR 1019 : (2021) 16 SCC 279; Ripudaman Singh v. Tikka Maheshwar Chand [2021] 6 SCR 562 : (2021) 7 SCC 446 – relied on. Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major [1995] Supp. 3 SCR 466 : (1995) 5 SCC 709 – referred to. List of Acts Registration Act, 1908; Indian Stamp Act,1899. 1212 [2024] 12 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports List of Keywords Consent decree/Compromise decree; Registration; Order/decree of the Court; Stamp duty; Mutation; Revenue records; Pre-existing right/title/interest over subject land; Right afresh; Suit for declaration and permanent injunction; Collusion; Documents/instruments; Not compulsorily registerable; Collector of Stamps; Documents of title; Exception of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908; Long and continuous possession; Continuous and uninterrupted adverse possession; Conveyance; No right transferred; No new right created through the consent
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.