Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhosharan vs Kamlesh Singh on 16 May, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
CIVIL REVISION No. 844 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
MADHOSHARAN S/O SHRI SIYASHARAN
RAGHUVANSHI OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O
VILL. SIMARIYA KALA TEH. SILWANI DISTT. RAISEN
M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI SANKALP KOCHAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. KAMLESH SINGH S/O SHRI DHANNULAL
RAGHUVANSHI R/O VILL. SIMARIYA KALA TEH.
SILWANI DISTT. RAISEN M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
COLLECTOR RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. PRIYANKA JAIN - PANEL LAWYER FOR STATE)
Reserved on : 12/04/2024
Pronounced on : 16/05/2024
This Civil Revision having been heard and reserved for order,
coming on for pronouncement on this day, Justice Devnarayan Mishra
pronounced the following:
ORDER
By the impugned revision, the applicant has challenged the order passed
by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Silwani, District Raisen in execution proceeding
9-A/2013 by which the application of the decree holder filed under Section 151
of CPC has been dismissed.
2. The facts giving rise to dispute in nutshell was that the original plaintiff
Madhosharan filed the suit against the defendant for suit for specific
performance on the ground that the agreement sale executed by the agreement
dated 01.06.2000 when the sale deed was not executed. The plaintiff/applicant
filed a civil suit 9-A/2013 that was decreed by the Court in favour of the
plaintiff/applicant on 30.06.2014 and the decree for specific performance of the
contract was passed in the favour of the plaintiff/applicant.
3. On that basis, the plaintiff/applicant filed execution proceedings as the
judgment and decree was not complied with by the respondent. In the execution
proceeding, the Trial Court initiated the proceeding to execute the sale deed in
favour of plaintiff and for that purpose, the executing court authorised his
execution clerk and as per the application filed before the Trial Court under
Section 151 of CPC that he has deposited Rs.300/- for execution of the sale
deed as market value of the suit property was Rs.1,32,000/- but the Deputy
Registrar, Silwani has ordered him to pay the stamp as the market value
applicable at the time of execution proceeding and has not considered the
principles laid down in the judgment in the case of Rambabu Agrawal v.
State of M.P., 2003 (3) MPLJ 151 of Madhya Pradesh High Court. The
decree holder as per application requested the Sub Registrar to register the sale
deed as per the market rate prevailing on 01.06.2000. Thus, Registrar has
violated the principles laid down in the case, hence he be punished for the
contempt of Court.
4. Trial Court by the impugned order dated 20.11.2018 has dismissed the
application of the applicant relying on the judgment of Smt. Harvinder Kaur
and others vs. State of M.P. and others, AIR 2007 MP 86 , hence, this
revision.
5. Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for appellant has argued that
Sub Registrar as well as First Appellate Court has not considered the principle
laid down in the case of Rambabu Agrawal (supra) in which it has been
clearly held that in the case of agreement when the suit for specific performance
has been filed and the deed is to be executed. The market value for the purpose
of stamp could be the date on which the agreement was executed not on the
date on which the sale deed is proposed to be executed and Trial Court has not
properly appreciated the legal position as stated in the Rambabu Agrawal
(supra) case. On the same facts, Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Presidents
Welfare Association, Noida vs. State of Utter Pradesh and others, (2009)
14 SCC 716 has considered the provisions of Section 47-A of Stamp Act and
in the case of Harvinder Kaur (supra). Sub Registrar is duty bound to refer
the case to collect of stamp and the amount fixed by the Collector of stamp.
The stamp/fee shall be applicable annexed on the basis of the value ascertained
by the Collector of stamp and for the purpose of market value, the property
shall be estimated to be the price which in the opinion of Collector or the
Appellate Authority as the case may be such property would have fetched or
could have fetched if sold in the open market on the date of the execution of the
instrument.
6. In this case, the revisionist has not produced a single document by
which it can be demonstrated before this Court that the application was filed by
the revisionist before the Sub Registrar for registration and Sub Registrar has
refused or referred the matter to the Registrar for deciding the market value of
the suit property. In this case, the provision of Section 47-A of Stamp Act is
not into play and the learned counsel has challenged only the order of the Trial
Court. Trial Court has dismissed the application but the revisionist has not
produced any order of the Sub Registrar or Collector of the stamp. The
revisionist has filed Annexure P-3 alongwith the revision in which on 08.01.2016
the Sub Registrar, Silwani has marked the letter to Sub Registrar, Raisen and
Senior Registrar, District Raisen has mentioned that
"ewyr% ofj"B ftyk iath;d jk;lsu dh vksj iszf"krA
mi iath;d
Rkg. flyokuh
vkosnd }kjk izLrqr vkosnu i= esa of.kZr O;ogkj okn dzekad 9A/2013 esa fu.kZ; mijkar
ikfjr fMdzh dk iath;u lEink E iath;u ds rgr~ 'kqYd vnk dj viuk nLrkost iath;u
djkosA"
ofj"B ftyk iath;d
jk;lsu
7. Thus, there is no order of registering authority. I have gone through the
judgment relied by the learned counsel for applicant in the case of Residents
Welfare Association (supra), the Apex Court considered the provision of
Section 47-A of Stamp Act applicable in Uttar Pradesh and Apex Court has
further held that lease deed is an assignment of the lease hold property for
enjoyment and it does not come in the definition of conveyance as mentioned in
Article 23 of Schedule of Stamp Act that is not applicable in the case. In the
same way, in the case of Harvinder Kaur (supra), before this Court, the
question was regarding the application of M.P. Amendment of Section 47-A of
Stamp Act but there is no question regarding Section 47-A of Stamp Act as the
document was not produced after affixing the required fee before the Registrar
and Registrar has not ordered any fee.
8. Section 17 of Stamp Act, it is as under:-
"17. Instruments executed in India.-All instruments
chargeable with duty and executed any person in
India shall be stamped before or at the time of
execution."
9. In the case of Manoj Kumar Mishra v. State of Bihar, AIR 2016
Pat 155, it is held as under:-
"14. In the present case at our hand, the sale deed was
never executed i.e. it was never signed either prior to the
filing of the suit for specific performance or after that. It is
settled principle of law that a taxing statute has to be
construed as it is. All the contingencies that the matter
was under litigation and the value of the property by that
time became high cannot be taken into account for
interpreting the provisions of a taxing statute. A taxing
statute has to be construed strictly and for construing the
taxing statute, the contention of the petitioner herein that
it took long time to get a decree for specific performance
cannot weigh with the Court. Therefore, simply because
the matter has been in the litigation for the long time
cannot be the ground for accepting the market value of
the instrument when the agreement to sale was entered."
10. Thus, the plaintiff is duty bound to pay the stamp on the sale deed as
per the market rate when the document is produced before Sub Registrar for
registration of the sale deed not as per the consideration amount/market value
stated in the agreement to sale. Thus, the revision cannot be allowed. Hence,
this Civil Revision is dismissed.
11 . With copy of this order, record of the case be sent back to the
concerned Trial Court.
12. Record of this revision be consigned to the record room.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
HK
