Explore the in-depth legal examination of a recent court case revolving around a stamp duty dispute. This summary focuses on the court’s analysis and decision regarding the application of Schedule 1-A entry in the context of deficient stamp duty payment. Gain insights into the intricacies of the law and its impact on the parties in the case.
Facts
- Appellant is aggrieved by High Court’s decision in CR-3172 of 2018.
- High Court dismissed appellant’s revision application and upheld Trial Court’s order.
- Trial Court directed appellant to pay deficient stamp duty along with penalty.
- Appellant has filed present appeal against the decision.
- The appellant has filed a Civil Suit seeking specific performance of Memorandum of Agreement dated 24.02.1996 and agreement to sell dated 14.05.2011 related to the suit land.
- The Trial Court was approached for enforcement of the said agreements.
- The specific performance of these agreements is the subject matter of the case before the Court.
- The appellant is seeking fulfillment of the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreements through this legal action.
Also Read: Challenging Legal Presumptions in Negotiable Instrument Cases
Analysis
- The possession of the disputed land was already with the appellant – Vijay Kumar as mentioned in the agreements.
- Possession was not delivered under the agreements in question.
- The Trial Court ordered the appellant to pay deficient stamp duty as per the relevant entry in Schedule 1-A.
- The appellant filed a Civil Revision Petition against this order which was dismissed by the High Court.
- The plaintiff in the case sought permanent injunction, not possession of the property.
- High Court and Trial Court’s order for appellant to pay deficient stamp duty is unsustainable.
- Entry No 5 (cc) of Schedule 1-A applies for stamp duty in this case.
- Plaintiff was already in possession before the execution of agreements.
Also Read: Legal Analysis of Admission Irregularities in Educational Institutions
Decision
- The present appeal has been allowed
- The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the Civil Revision Petition No CR-3172 of 2018 has been quashed
- The order passed by the Trial Court directing the appellant – original plaintiff to pay the deficient stamp duty along with the penalty has been set aside
Also Read: Quashing of Enhanced Tuition Fee in Private Medical Colleges
Case Title: VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL (DEAD) THR. LR. Vs. NEENA RANI (2022 INSC 969)
Case Number: C.A. No.-006538-006538 / 2022
