Ramesh Mishrimal Jain v. Avinash Vishwanath Patne & Anr.

Judgment

[2025] 2 S.C.R. 670 : 2025 INSC 213 Ramesh Mishrimal Jain v. Avinash Vishwanath Patne & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 2549 of 2025) 14 February 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant is liable to pay stamp duty and penalty on the agreement to sell dated 03.09.2003 allegedly executed between the appellant and the mother of respondent no.1 in respect of the suit property. Headnotes† Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 – Explanation I to Article 25 – Appellant filed suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 03.09.2003 – Respondents filed an application u/s.34 of the 1958 Act for impounding the document – Trial Court allowed the said application, impounded the sale agreement dated 03.09.2003 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 – Appellant challenged the same by filing writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court – Correctness: Held: In the instant case, the agreement to sell executed between the appellant and mother of the respondent no.1, stated that the suit property was occupied by the appellant on a rental basis and it would not be a part of the sale transaction – Further, there was a clause, by which, timeline was given for execution of sale deed – Since the possession was admittedly given to the appellant even before the date of agreement, implying acquisition of possessory rights protected u/s.53A of the Transfer of Property Act, the same requires payment of proper stamp duty – The agreement to sell includes a clause stating that physical possession had already been handed over to the appellant, regardless of the basis of such * Author [2025] 2 S.C.R.

671 possession – This satisfies the requirement to treat the instrument as a ‘conveyance’ within the meaning of Explanation I to Article 25 of Schedule I of Bombay Stamp Act, with only the formality of executing the sale deed remaining – Pertinently, it is to be pointed out that the appellant filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell against the respondents; respondent no.1 filed a suit seeking eviction of the appellant from the subject property; and both the suits are pending, which clearly establish the possession of the property by the appellant – Therefore, the said document is liable for payment of stamp duty at the hands of the appellant – The Courts below rightly impounded the document and directed the same to be sent to the Registrar of Stamps for recovery of deficit stamp duty and penalty as per law, by the orders impugned herein. [Paras 11, 12] Case Law Cited