Vijay Kumar Goyal (Dead) Thr. LR. Versus Neena Rani & Ors.

Vijay Kumar Goyal (Dead) Thr. LR.  Versus Neena Rani & Ors.

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले



REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6538 OF 2022
Vijay Kumar Goyal (Dead) Thr. LR. …Appellant(s)
Versus
Neena Rani & Ors. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
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
1
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.
2
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
disputed land in question was already with the appellant – Vijay Kumar.
In the Memorandum of Agreement dated 24.02.1996, it is mentioned that
“the above said land is already with my brother Vijay Kumar and after
today, my brother, Vijay Kumar has become the owner in possession of
the above land like me”. In the agreement to sell dated 14.05.2011, in
paragraph 2, it is stated that “that the possession of the above land is
already with party No. 2 and the party No. 2 is having possession of the
same today also”. Thus, it cannot be said that the possession of the
land in question was delivered through under the said agreements of
which the specific performance is sought. In that view of the matter,
Entry No. 5 of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act as amended by the
State of Punjab shall not be applicable. 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. As observed
hereinabove, the plaintiff was already in possession prior to the
execution of the aforesaid agreements as per the recitals in the
aforesaid two agreements. It is to be noted that even the plaintiff has
3
also not sought the possession in the suit filed by him and has in fact
sought the permanent injunction restraining the defendants from
interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and from
dispossessing or causing to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit
property.
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the order
passed by the High Court and that of the Trial Court directing the
appellant – original plaintiff to pay the deficient stamp duty with penalty
applying Sub-column No. 2 of Column No. 2 of Entry No. 23 of Schedule
1-A as amended by the State of Punjab is unsustainable and the same
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present
appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court dismissing the Civil Revision Petition No. CR-3172 of 2018
and the order passed by the Trial Court directing the appellant – original
plaintiff to pay the deficient stamp duty along with the penalty are hereby
quashed and set aside.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
………………………………….J.
 [M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
SEPTEMBER 16, 2022. [KRISHNA MURARI]
4

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर