LexSHYAMSUNDAR RADHESHYAM AGRAWAL & ANR. versus PUSHPABAI NILKANTH PATIL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 881 : 2024 INSC 730 Shyamsundar Radheshyam Agrawal & Anr. v. Pushpabai Nilkanth Patil & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 10804 of 2024) 24 September 2024 [Pankaj Mithal and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the appellants are liable to pay stamp duty and penalty on the agreements to sell executed prior to the sale deed executed in their favour. Headnotes† Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 – s.4 and Explanation 1 to Article 25 of Schedule I – Registration Act, 1908 – s.17 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.53A – Appellants instituted a suit seeking declaration and injunction – Defendant No.46 took out an application u/ss. 33, 34 & 37 of the 1958 Act r/w. s.17 of the Registration Act, to impound the six original agreements for sale viz., Exh.145/3 dated 20.07.1994, Exh.145/9 dated 20.07.1994, Exh.145/15 dated 12.10.1994, Exh.145/19 dated 12.10.1994, Exh.145/23 dated 27.04.2006 and Exh.145/25 dated 19.09.2004 produced by the appellants, so as to get them registered, on the premise that the said documents include a clause that the physical possession of the properties mentioned therein, was transferred to the purchasers; however, they were not duly stamped; and hence, the documents require the payment of stamp duty of the conveyance – Correctness: Held: In the instant case, in the documents, though there was a clause for conveyance between the vendors and purchasers in relation to the respective properties, the value of the properties were above Rs.100/- and there was also a clause by which possession was admittedly handed over on the date of the agreement, implying acquisition of possessory rights protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, which requires payment of proper stamp duty and registration as mandated under Section 17 of the Registration Act – Further, as per Section 4(2) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, the parties are at liberty to determine as to which * Author 882 [2024] 9 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports of the document shall be principal document – As noted, the agreement for sale consists of a clause whereby the possession was handed over to the purchaser satisfying the requirement to treat the instrument as conveyance and what remained was only the formality of execution of the sale deed – Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the agreement for sale was the principal document on which stamp duty was to be paid as per Article 25 – Even considering the contention of the appellant, that the sale agreements ultimately concluded in the sale deed on which stamp duty was paid, would not by ipso facto absolve the primary liability of paying the appropriate stamp duty at the time of execution of the sale agreement as it was the principal document – Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that Section 4 of the Act cannot come to the aid of the appellants – Therefore, all these six documents ought to have been necessarily stamped and registered. [Para 14] Case Law Cited Veena Hasmukh Jain v. State of Maharashtra [1999] 1 SCR 302 : (1999) 5 SCC 725 : 1999 SCC Online SC 78 – relied on. List of Acts Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958; Registration Act, 1908; Transfer of Property Act, 1882. List of Keywords Stamp Duty; Penalty; Agreement to sell; Physical possession of properties; Conveyance; Sale deed; Section 4 of Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958; Section 17 of Registration Act, 1908; Section 53 A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10804 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 03.03.2021 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in WP No. 4695 of 2017 Appearances for Parties Rohan Thawani, C. George Thomas, Ansh Mittal, Advs. for the Appellants. [2024] 9 S.C.R. 883 Shyamsundar Radheshyam Agrawal & Anr. v. Pushpabai Nilkanth Patil & Ors Abdul Azeem Kalebudde, Dr. Rajiv Masodkar, Satyajeet Kumar, Anand Dilip Landge, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adarsh Dubey, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment R. Mahadevan, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is filed assailing the final order dated 03.03.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (hereinafter shortly referred to as “the High Court”) in Writ Petition No.4695 of 2017, by which, the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition, thereby affirming the order dated 26.10.2016 pa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.