Agreement For Sale Conveying Possession Must Be Stamped As 'Conveyance' Under Maharashtra Stampt Act : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that when an agreement for sale consists a clause to hand over possession of the property, then it has to be treated as "conveyance" for the purpose of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. Therefore, the liability to pay stamp duty will arise at the time of the execution of such an agreement for sale.The fact that a sale deed was ultimately executed in pursuance of the agreement for sale and that stamp duty was paid on such sale deed will not absolve the primary liability of paying the appropriate stamp duty at the time of execution of the sale agreement. Because, in such a case, the agreement for sale is the principal document, the Court stated, referring to Explanation 1 to Article 25 of Schedule-I of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958."The above Explanation I makes it lucid that an agreement for sale is to be treated as a “conveyance” if either possession is handed over immediately or if it is agreed to be handed over within a particular time. A reading of the above Explanation I along with Section 4 makes it clear that the duty is levied only on the instrument and not on the transaction," the Court observed.A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and R. Mahadevan decided the matter. The specific issue in this case was whether the Appellants are liable to pay stamp duty and penalty on the agreements to sell executed before the sale deed executed in their favour in respect of two immovable properties. The appeal is filed by the Appellants against the order of the Bombay High Court dated March 3, 2021 whereby it affirmed the Trial Court's order dated October 26, 2016, which allowed the application of the respondents for impounding six documents produced by the appellants.Brief factsThe defendant applied under Sections 33, 34 & 37 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 r/w Section 17 of the Registration Act, to impound the six original agreements for sale produced by the appellants to get them registered, on the premise that the said documents include a clause that the physical possession of the properties mentioned therein, was transferred to the purchasers. However, they were not duly stamped and hence, the documents require the payment of stamp duty of the conveyance.The Trial Court held that the subsequent sale deed cannot be construed as a principal transaction and the agreements to sell would be treated as the principal conveyance as per Explanation I of Article 25 of Schedule-I of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958.It had allowed the impounding of the documents and directed sending them to the Collector of Stamp for adjudication of stamp duty and penalty, if any. This was challenged and subsequently dismissed by the High Court.Arguments before the Supreme Court The counsel for the Appellant contended that the agreements to sell were about the same immovable properties and ultimately resulted in a sale deed in favour of the appellant which was duly registered.They relied on Section 4 (several instruments used in a single transaction of development agreement, sale, mortgage or settlement) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 and argued that prior agreements to sell are not required to be registered and stamped because the earlier agreements were part and parcel of the same transaction. They subsequently got merged with the sale deed executed.The counsel for the Respondents that on a detailed analysis of the agreement to sell, there was a specific clause about the transfer of physical possession to the purchaser and the Trial Court rightly allowed the impounding of the documents. What did the Supreme Court observe?At the outset, the Supreme Court clarified the legal rule application. It said: "In order to determine the stamp duty that is chargeable upon an instrument, the legal rule is that the real and true meaning of the instrument is to be determined by ascertaining the intention of the parties from the contents and the language employed in the whole instrument and the description or the nomenclature given to the instrument by the parties is immaterial."On perusing Section 4(1) of the Act, the Court said it makes clear that where several instruments are executed for completing a transaction, the principal instrument alone shall be chargeable with duty prescribed in Schedule I. It explained Section 4 as: "The proviso makes it clear that the duty chargeable on the instrument so determined shall be the highest duty which could be chargeable in respect of any of the said instruments forming part of the same transaction. Each of the other instruments is chargeable with a fixed duty. That apart, sub-section (2) also gives an opportunity to the parties to determine for themselves, which of the instruments shall be deemed to be the principal instrument."Based on the law and the reading of all 6 documents, the Court held: "On a reading of all these six documents, it could be seen that the instruments /documents were not forming part of a single transaction between the same parties and they were...

Agreement For Sale Conveying Possession Must Be Stamped As 'Conveyance' Under Maharashtra Stampt Act : Supreme Court

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags