LexMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI versus PRAMOD KUMAR GUPTA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI v. PRAMOD KUMAR GUPTA DECEMBER 17, 1990 A [LAUT MOHAN SHARMA AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.] B Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957: Section 147-Levy of duty on transfer of immovable property-Expression 'instrument of sale of immovable property'-Scope of-Word 'instrument'-Whether has the same connotation as under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXJ, Rules 92-94-Auction sale-Certificate of sale issued by Civil Court-Whether instrument of sale-Whether chargeable to duty under section 147 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 -Object of the sale certificate explained. c Indian Stamp Act, 1899: Section 2 Clause (JO) and ( 14)-'Con- D veyance' and 'instrument'-Meaning of. The respondent purchased the property in question at an auction sale held in exerution of a decree of the Civil Court. The sale was conf"rrmed under Order XXI, Rule 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the High Court directed issuing of a sale certificate under Rule E 94. On the question of payment of duty the respondent contended that no duty was chargeable under section 147 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. A single judge of the High Court accepted his plea and directed payment of only stamp duty (under the Stamp Act, 1899) with- out any surcharge under section 147 of the 1957 Act for issuance of the sale certificate. On appeal the judgment of the single judge· was F confirmed by a Division Bench of the High Court. Hence this appeal by Municipal Corporation. Dismissing the appeal, this Court, HELD: 1. The expression 'instrument of sale of immovable pro- G perty' under section 147 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 means a document effecting transfer. The title to the property in question has to he conveyed under the document. The document has to be a vehicle for the transfer of the right, title and interest, A document merely stating as a fact that transfer has already taken place cannot be included within this expression. A paper which is recording a fact or is H 547 548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] Supp. 3 S.C.R. A attempting to fUrnisb evidence of an already concluded transaCtion under which title bas already passed cannot be treated to be such an instrument. [SSOB-D] 2. The provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 make it clear that the title to the property put on auction sale B passes by force of law when tbe sale is held and the transfer becomes final when an order under Rule 92 confirming it is made. By the certifi- cate issued under Rule 94, the Court is formally declaring the effect of the same and is not extinguishing or creating title. The object of issuance of such a Certificate is to avoid any controversy with respect to the identity of the property sold, and of the purchaser thereof as also C of the date when the sale becomes absolute. The use of past tense in the rule stating that the sale "became" absolute, is consistent with this interpretation. The Certificate of sale, therefore, cannot be termed to be an instrument of sale so as to attract section 147 of the Delhi Munici- pal Corporation Act. [550E-H; SSlA-D] D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6081 of 1990. From the Judgment and Order dated 1.4.1987 of the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No. 68 of 1987. E Ranjit Kumar for the Appellant. Arun Mohan and P.H. Parekh for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F SHARMA, J. Special leave is granted. The short question which arises in this appeal is whether duty is payable under s. 147 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, on a sale certificate issued by the civil court under Order XXI, Rule 94 Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The property in question was auction sold in execution of a G decree in the civil court and was purchased on August 4, 1986 by the respondent Pramod Kumar Gupta for a sum of Rs.17 ,00,000. The sale was confirmed on November 6, 1986, and the High Court directed the issuing of the Sale Certificate under Order XX!, Rule 94, C.P.C. On the question of payment of stamp duty, the respondent cont~nded that no duty was chargeable under s. 147 of the 1957 Act. The learned H single Judge of the High Court agreed with him and directed payment M.C.D. v. P.K. GUPTA [SHARMA, J.] 549 of only the stamp duty without surcharge for issuance of the Sale Certificate. The judgment was confirmed on appeal by a Division Bench. The petit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.