RAMESH MISHRIMAL JAIN Vs. AVINASH VISHWANATH PATNE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The challenge made in this appeal is to the order dtd. 29/8/2019, by which the High Court of Judicature at Bombay [Hereinafter referred to as "the High Court"] dismissed Writ Petition No.3246 of 2016. As a consequence thereof, the order dtd. 3/8/2015 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ratnagiri [Hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court"], was upheld. The trial Court in its order dtd. 3/8/2015 had allowed the application filed by the respondents and impounded the document (Exhibit 30) i.e., agreement to sell dtd. 3/9/2003 in respect of the property comprising House No.78/B/8 (18 x 9 feet) and an adjoining room (9 x 3 feet) situated at Paiki Village Kasaba Khed, Khed Taluk, and directed the same to be sent to the Registrar of Stamps for recovery of deficit stamp duty and penalty on it, as per law.

(3.) The appellant, originally, preferred a suit being Special Civil Suit No.65 of 2012 before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ratnagiri, for specific performance of the agreement to sell deed dtd. 3/9/2003 and other reliefs. Repudiating the same, the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed their written statement. Pending the suit, the respondents filed an application under sec. 34 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, for impounding the document stating that the agreement in question was executed on a stamp paper of Rs.50.00 and the suit property was situated within the limits of Khed Municipal Council and hence, stamp duty of Rs.44,000.00 was required to be paid, besides penalty of Rs.1,31,850.00. The said application was resisted by the appellant by stating that the agreement of sale was not an agreement of conveyance and hence, no stamp duty was payable on the same. However, by order dtd. 3/8/2015, the trial Court allowed the said application, impounded the sale agreement dtd. 3/9/2003 and directed the document to be sent to the Registrar of Stamps for recovery of the stamp duty and penalty on it as per law. Challenging the same, the appellant preferred W.P.No.3246 of 2016, which was dismissed by the High Court, by the order impugned in this appeal.