Case Note & Summary
The petitioners (defendants in the suit) challenged a common order dated 22/8/2019 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Pune in Special Suit No.935/2012, whereby the trial court refused to impound an agreement of sale dated 11/9/2009 and refer it to the Collector of Stamps for determination of deficit stamp duty and penalty. The suit was filed by the first respondent (plaintiff) against the second respondent (defendant No.1), the petitioners (defendant Nos.2 and 3), and the third respondent (defendant No.4) for cancellation of documents, specific performance, declaration, and permanent injunction. The subject matter was 1/4th joint share of defendant No.1 in land bearing survey No.185 of Muze Wakad, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune. According to the plaintiff, defendant No.1 executed a notarised agreement of sale dated 11/9/2009 in his favour for a consideration of Rs.3 Lakhs per acre. The plaintiff later learned that defendant No.1 executed a sale deed on 2/3/2010 in favour of defendant No.2 for part of the property and failed to execute the sale deed as agreed. The suit was filed for declaration, cancellation of sale deed, and specific performance. The petitioners resisted the claim. During trial, the plaintiff filed his affidavit in examination-in-chief (Exh.144) on 6/7/2019, and on the same date, his further examination-in-chief was recorded on oath, in which the plaintiff tendered the original agreement of sale dated 11/9/2009, which was marked as Exh.146. The petitioners filed an application (Exh.176) under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, read with Section 151 CPC, praying that the agreement of sale be impounded and referred to the Collector of Stamps for determination of deficit stamp duty and penalty. The trial court rejected the application, holding that the agreement was not an instrument chargeable with stamp duty. The High Court upheld the trial court's order, holding that a notarised agreement of sale is not an instrument chargeable with stamp duty under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, and therefore cannot be impounded under Section 33. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Stamp Act - Impounding of Instrument - Notarised Agreement of Sale - Section 33 Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 - The court considered whether a notarised agreement of sale is an 'instrument' chargeable with stamp duty under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. The court held that a notarised agreement of sale is not an instrument chargeable with stamp duty as it is not required to be stamped under the Act. The trial court's refusal to impound the document was upheld. (Paras 2-19) B) Civil Procedure - Specific Performance - Agreement of Sale - Notarised Document - The suit was for specific performance based on a notarised agreement of sale. The court noted that the agreement was not required to be stamped and could be admitted in evidence. The petition challenging the refusal to impound was dismissed. (Paras 3-19)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a notarised agreement of sale can be impounded under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 for deficit stamp duty and penalty.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the trial court's order refusing to impound the agreement of sale.
Law Points
- Notarised agreement of sale is not an instrument chargeable with stamp duty
- Section 33 of Maharashtra Stamp Act applies only to instruments chargeable with duty
- Impounding requires proper application of mind by trial court
