RAJENDRA SYAL Vs. HARI PRASAD AGRAWAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the order passed in Case No. 7 -A/13 on 30.4.2014, whereby the application of petitioners/defendant No. 2 preferred under Sections 33, 35 and 38 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is rejected by the Court below.

(2.) SHRI P.C. Chandil, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 & 2 filed a suit for specific performance of contract. In the said suit, the document Annexure P -3, i.e., 'agreement for sale' was filed. The petitioner preferred an application under Sections 33, 35 and 38 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Annexure P -4) and prayed that in the agreement of sale, the sale consideration is Rs. 8 crores. The stamp duty on the said amount would be Rs. 8 lakhs, whereas the plaintiffs have paid only Rs. 100/ - and, therefore, by invoking Section 33(1) and 35 of the Stamp Act, the said document be impounded and send to Collector of Stamp for proper adjudication.

(3.) CRITICIZING the impugned order, learned counsel submits that the Court below has given contradictory findings. In the first breath it is mentioned that the document Annexure P -3 infact is not an agreement for sale, whereas in the concluding paragraph the finding is given that it is an agreement for sale. By drawing attention of this Court on Schedule 1 -A of Stamp Act [entry (e) (ii)], it is contended that this entry shall be applicable and, therefore, 1% of total consideration of the property set -forth in agreement or memorandum of agreement shall be the stamp duty. By taking assistance from Clause 5(d), it is contended that a minute reading of agreement for sale shows that it also falls within the ambit of Clause (d) aforesaid. Reverting back to Section (6) of the Stamp Act, it is urged that if one document is covered in two entries, then the stamp duty which is higher should be payable. Thus, he submits that 2% of the stamp duty is payable on the document in question. In support of his contention, he relied on : AIR 2008 SC 1640 (Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Smt. P. Laxmi Devi).