LexRAMESH MISHRIMAL JAIN versus AVINASH VISHWANATH PATNE & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 670 : 2025 INSC 213 Ramesh Mishrimal Jain v. Avinash Vishwanath Patne & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 2549 of 2025) 14 February 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant is liable to pay stamp duty and penalty on the agreement to sell dated 03.09.2003 allegedly executed between the appellant and the mother of respondent no.1 in respect of the suit property. Headnotes† Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 – Explanation I to Article 25 – Appellant filed suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 03.09.2003 – Respondents filed an application u/s.34 of the 1958 Act for impounding the document – Trial Court allowed the said application, impounded the sale agreement dated 03.09.2003 and directed the document to be sent to the Registrar of Stamps for recovery of the stamp duty and penalty on it as per law – Appellant challenged the same by filing writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court – Correctness: Held: In the instant case, the agreement to sell executed between the appellant and mother of the respondent no.1, stated that the suit property was occupied by the appellant on a rental basis and it would not be a part of the sale transaction – Further, there was a clause, by which, timeline was given for execution of sale deed – Since the possession was admittedly given to the appellant even before the date of agreement, implying acquisition of possessory rights protected u/s.53A of the Transfer of Property Act, the same requires payment of proper stamp duty – The agreement to sell includes a clause stating that physical possession had already been handed over to the appellant, regardless of the basis of such * Author [2025] 2 S.C.R. 671 Ramesh Mishrimal Jain v. Avinash Vishwanath Patne & Anr. possession – This satisfies the requirement to treat the instrument as a ‘conveyance’ within the meaning of Explanation I to Article 25 of Schedule I of Bombay Stamp Act, with only the formality of executing the sale deed remaining – Pertinently, it is to be pointed out that the appellant filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell against the respondents; respondent no.1 filed a suit seeking eviction of the appellant from the subject property; and both the suits are pending, which clearly establish the possession of the property by the appellant – Therefore, the said document is liable for payment of stamp duty at the hands of the appellant – The Courts below rightly impounded the document and directed the same to be sent to the Registrar of Stamps for recovery of deficit stamp duty and penalty as per law, by the orders impugned herein. [Paras 11, 12] Case Law Cited Veena Hasmukh Jain and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others [1999] 1 SCR 302 : (1999) 5 SCC 725; Shyamsundar Radheshyam Agrawal v. Pushpabai Nilkanth Patil [2024] 9 SCR 881 : (2024) 10 SCC 324 – relied on. Veena Hasmukh Jain v. State of Maharashtra [1999] 1 SCR 302 : (1999) 5 SCC 725 : 1999 SCC Online SC 78 – referred to. B. Ratnamala v. G. Rudramma, 1999 SCC OnLine AP 438 – referred to. List of Acts Bombay Stamp Act, 1958; Transfer of Property Act, 1882. List of Keywords Agreement to sell; Conveyance; Explanation I to Article 25 of Schedule I of Bombay Stamp Act, 1958; Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act; Recovery of Deficit stamp duty; Penalty. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2549 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 29.08.2019 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in WP No. 3246 of 2016 672 [2025] 2 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Abhimanyu Bhandari, Sr. Adv., Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, Harshit Khanduja, Ankit Khera. Advs. for the Respondents: Ms. Awantika Manohar, Dhawesh Pahuja, Nilesh Sharma, Ms. Parul Dhurvey, P Mohit Krishna. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment R. Mahadevan, J. Leave granted. 2. The challenge made in this appeal is to the order dated 29.08.2019, by which the High Court of Judicature at Bombay1 dismissed Writ Petition No.3246 of 2016. As a consequence thereof, the order dated 03.08.2015 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ratnagiri,2 was upheld. The trial Court in its order dated 03.08.2015 had allowed the application filed by the respondents and impounded the document (Exhibit 30) i.e., agreement to sell dated 03.09.2003 in respect of the property comprising House No.78/B/8 (
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.