NARBADA PRASAD Vs. MANIK DARBAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Short facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that respondent No. 1 Manik Darbar filed a suit for specific performance basically on the ground that the property in dispute was agreed to be sold for a sum of Rs. 4,90,500/-, entire amount was paid to the defendants, viz., Narbada Prasad, Pramod Kumar Singh and Vinod Kumar Singh, a document was written on stamp papers worth Rs. 115/- but, however, the other two sellers refused to sign the said document and left the office of the Registrar of Conveyance, therefore, the suit was for a direction to the defendants to appear before the Registrar and execute the sale deed so also for other reliefs. During the trial the defendant filed an application that the document was worth for Rs. 5 lacs, stamp duty worth Rs. 60,000/- was to be paid, penalty would be ten times that is Rs. 6 lacs, therefore, the said amount of duty and penalty be asked to be deposited and only thereafter, the question of admissibility of the document be decided. The plaintiff appeared and submitted that the document in question was not an agreement but in fact it was an unexecuted sale deed not falling under Item No. 5 of Schedule 1-A appended to Indian Stamps Act, therefore, the defendant's objections be rejected.

(2.) The learned Court below after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the document would not come under the mischief of Item No. 5 of Schedule 1-A nor would come under Item No. 22 of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act. Being aggrieved by the said order the defendant has filed this writ petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the document is in relation to sale of an immovable property and it recites that possession of the property has already been delivered to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is bound to pay stamp duty payable on an agreement as provided under Art. 5 of the Schedule 1-A. In the alternative it is submitted that if it is taken to be a conveyance as provided under Item No. 22 then too the plaintiff is required to pay stamp duty on the market value as provided under Item No. 22.