S.P. GOEL versus COLLECTOR OF STAMPS

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 340 · Decided: 08-12-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH, S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
S.P. GOEL 
v. 
COLLECTOR OF STAMPS 
DECEMBER 8, 1995 
[KULDIP SINGH AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.) 
Consumer Protection Act 1986-Sections 2(1) (d), 2(1) (o), 2(1) 
(g)-Stamp Act 1899-Sections 35, 33(1), 2(14), 2(10), 3, 40, Entry 23 of 
Schedule I-Registration Act 1908-Document presented for registra-
C lion-Sub-Registrar, holding that it was not a will but a deed of conveyance, 
impounding it as not being duly stamped, and sending it to the Collector of 
Stamps-Collector deciding after hearing that document was conveyance 
deed-Whether appellant consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protec-
tion Act 1986-Whether District Fornm or State Commission has jurisdiction 
D to entertain claim-Held, executant of instrnment is not 'consumer' entitled 
to 'service ' within the Consumer Protection Act-Concept of Consumer 
Protection Act is different from scope, object and purpose of Registration Act 
and Stamp Act-Latter Acts deal with state revenue-Further, there is no 
element of commercialism involved in process of registration of instrnments 
E and payment of stamp duty-Officers implementing these two Acts only per-
form statutory duties, some of which are judicial or quasi-judicial, to raise 
and collect state revenue which is within sovereign power of state-Sovereign 
function. 
Stamp Act 1899-Section 2(9)-Registration Act 1908-Section 
F 86-Judicial Officers (Protection) Act 1850--Section I-Claim against Col-
lector for negligence and delay in peiformance of duties, whether can be . 
entertained-Held, immunity from legal action contemplated under Judicial 
Officers (Protection) Act 1850 available to Col/ecto1-Held further, Register-
ing Officer also protected for things done bona fide-No plea or finding that 
G refusal of Registering Officer or inaction of Collector malicious, motivated or 
malafide-'Judges (Protection) Act 1985. 
The appellant sought registration of a 'Will'. The Sub-Registrar 
before whom it was presented for registration impounded it as he was 
H of the opinion that it was not a Will but a deed of conveyance which 
340 
S.P. GOEL v. COLLECTOR OF STAMPS 
341 
was not duly stamped. The Collector of Stamps to whom he sent the A 
document for action under Section 40 of the Stamp Act 1899 issued 
several notices to the appellant, and when the appellant appeared before 
him, the Collector required that, since the document was not a will but 
a deed of conveyance, the appellant should furnish valuation report, 
receipts etc. so that the document may be properly stamped and B 
registered. 
While the matter was pending before the Collector, the appellant 
approached the J)istrict Fotum under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 
for reliefs including registration of the 'will' and compensation for 
harassment. The District Forum allowed the claim and awarded com-
C 
pensation and costs of litigation holding that the appellant having paid 
the registration charges shall be treated to have hired the services of 
the Sub-Registrar and the Collector of Stamps. On appeal, the State 
Commission upheld the decision of the District Forum and also en-
hanced the amount of compensation. The National Commission, in D 
revision, held that the District Forum as also the State Commission had 
no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the claim of the 
applicant particularly as he was not a 'consumer' within the meaning of 
the Consumer Protection Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The Registration Act as also the Stamp Act are meant 
primarily to augment the State revenue. Payment of registration fee or 
registration charges constitute a component of State revenue. The person 
who presents a document for registration and pays the stamp duty on 
it or the registration fee does not become a consumer nor do the officers 
appointed to implement the provisions of the two Acts render any service 
within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. They only perform 
their statutory duties, some of which are judicial or, at least, quasi-judi-
cial in nature, to raise and collect State revenue which is a part of the 
sovereign power of the State. [353-E·H] 
2. It is apparent from Sections 35 and 33(1) of the Stamp Act that 
E 
F 
G 
a document which is not duly stamped will not be registered and the 
Sub-Registrar before whom the document is presented may refuse its H 
342 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A registration and may, even, impound the document in the course or 
performance of his statut

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