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

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

Because the agreements expressly recited that the plaintiff was already in possession prior to their execution and the plaintiff did not seek possession in the suit, the agreements were not 'agreement to sell followed by or evidencing delivery of possession' within Entry No.5(cc) of Schedule 1-A; therefore the Trial Court's and High Court's direction to pay deficient stamp duty under Sub-column No.2 of Column No.2 of Entry No.23 was unsustainable and was set aside.

Parties
Appellant; Original Plaintiff: VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL (DEAD) THR. LR.; Respondents; Defendants: NEENA RANI & ORS.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court Against High Court Dismissal of Civil Revision Petition No. CR 3172 of 2018
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Stamp Duty on Agreement to Sell, Schedule 1 a Entry No.5(cc), Specific Performance, Possession
Stamp Law Property Law Civil Appeal Stamp Duty on Agreement to Sell Schedule 1 a Entry No.5(cc) Specific Performance Possession

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL (DEAD) THR. LR.

Appellant; Original Plaintiff

NEENA RANI & ORS.

Respondents; Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court Against High Court Dismissal of Civil Revision Petition No. CR 3172 of 2018

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Entry No.5 of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act as amended by the State of Punjab applies to the agreements in question
  2. 2 Whether stamp duty is leviable under Sub-column No.2 of Column No.2 of Entry No.23 of Schedule 1-A for the agreements before the Court
  3. 3 Whether possession was delivered under the agreements of which specific performance is sought

Ratio Decidendi

Because the agreements expressly recited that the plaintiff was already in possession prior to their execution and the plaintiff did not seek possession in the suit, the agreements were not 'agreement to sell followed by or evidencing delivery of possession' within Entry No.5(cc) of Schedule 1-A; therefore the Trial Court's and High Court's direction to pay deficient stamp duty under Sub-column No.2 of Column No.2 of Entry No.23 was unsustainable and was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing Civil Revision Petition No. CR-3172 of 2018 and the order passed by the Trial Court directing the appellant to pay the deficient stamp duty along with penalty are quashed and set aside.
  • Present appeal is allowed.