VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL (DEAD) THR. LR. versus NEENA RANI & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 207 · Decided: 16-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
207
VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL (DEAD) THR. LR.
v.
NEENA RANI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6538 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 16, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Indian Stamp Act – Entry No.5 of Schedule 1-A as amended
by State of Punjab – When not applicable – Suit filed by appellant-
original plaintiff for specific performance of Memorandum of
Agreement and agreement to sell – Plaintiff was directed to pay the
deficient stamp duty with penalty observing that as per Schedule 1-
A, Entry No.5, the stamp duty shall be leviable u/Sub-column No.2
of Column No.2 of Entry No. 23 of Schedule 1-A as amended by the
State of Punjab – Revision petition, dismissed by High Court – On
appeal, held : As per Entry No.5 (cc) of Schedule 1-A applicable
under the State of Punjab, “in the case of agreement to sell followed
by or evidencing delivery of possession of the immovable property
agreed to be sold”, the stamp duty is leviable under Column No. 2
of Entry No.23 of Schedule 1-A – However, in the present case, the
plaintiff was already in possession prior to the execution of the
aforesaid agreements as per the recitals therein – Even the plaintiff
has also not sought the possession in the suit and has in fact sought
permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering
in his peaceful possession and from dispossessing/causing to
dispossess him from the suit property – Thus, it cannot be said that
the possession of the land in question was delivered under the
agreements of which the specific performance is sought – Therefore,
Entry No.5 of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act as amended by
the State of Punjab shall not be applicable – Order of the High
Court and Trial Court set aside – Stamp/Stamp Duty.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6538
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Orders dated 12.02.2020 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision Petition
No. CR-3172 of 2018 (O&M).
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 207
207
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
208
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
Shehbaz Thind, Mrs. Naresh Bakshi, M/s Bakshi & Associates,
Advs. for the Appellants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
in Civil Revision Petition No. CR-3172 of 2018 by which the High Court
has dismissed the said revision application preferred by the appellant
herein and has confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court directing
the appellant – original plaintiff to pay the deficient stamp duty alongwith
the penalty, the original plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.
2. That the appellant herein has instituted Civil Suit before the
Trial Court for specific performance of the Memorandum of Agreement
dated 24.02.1996 and the agreement to sell dated 14.05.2011 with regard
to the suit land. In the said suit, the Trial Court passed an order directing
the original plaintiff – appellant to pay the deficient stamp duty as leviable
under Sub-column No. 2 of Column No. 2 of Entry No. 23 of Schedule
1-A by observing that as per Schedule 1-A, Entry No. 5 with respect to
Memorandum of Agreement or agreement to sell followed by or
evidencing delivery of possession of the immovable property agreed to
be sold, the stamp duty shall be leviable under Sub-column No. 2 of
Column No. 2 of Entry No. 23 of Schedule 1-A as amended by the State
of Punjab.
2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by
the Trial Court ordering the deficient stamp duty alongwith the penalty
to be paid, the original plaintiff – appellant preferred the Civil Revision
Petition No. CR-3172 of 2018 before the High Court. By the impugned
judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said revision petition,
which has given rise to the present appeal.
3. Though served, none has appeared on behalf of the respondents.
4. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant. We have considered and gone through the Memorandum of
Agreement dated 24.02.1996 and the agreement to sell dated 14.05.2011
of which the specific performance has been sought.
4.1 Having gone through the said agreements, it can be seen that
the possession has not been delivered under the said agreements. In
these agreements, it is specifically mentioned that the possession of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
209
disputed land in question was already with the appellant – Vijay Kumar.
In the Memorandum of Agreement dated 24.02.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.