No adhesive stamps on agreement of sale = Sec.11,2(13) and Rules 13 (d), rule 17of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short ‘the Act’)= Affixing adhesive stamps on white paper sale agreement is not proper payment of stamp duty - liable to be send for impounding the same =the document, namely, agreement of sale dated 1.11.2006, which was sought to be marked, was written on the white paper affixed with adhesive stamps and was not executed by impressed stamp paper.- objected for marking = The said objection was sustained by the trial Court holding that Section (11) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short ‘the Act’) defines ‘duly stamped’. Section 2(13) defines ‘impressed stamp’. Rule 17 of the Indian Stamp Rules, 1925 (for short ‘the Rules’) defines Special Adhesive stamps to be used in certain cases and what instrument they can be used. The document in question, being an agreement of sale, is not included in the said Rule where adhesive stamps can be used. Further Rule 13 of the Rules provides as to and for what instrument adhesive stamps can be used, but the said Rule also do not include the agreement of sale, which is coming within the Article 6 of Schedule-1A of the Act. Therefore, the objections have to be sustained giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to send it to the Collector for proper certification as required under Section 37 read with 18 of the Act.


 published in http://164.100.12.10/hcorders/orders/2010/crp/crp_885_2010.html

* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY


+ C.R.P.No.885 of 2010

%  13-08-2010


# Tadi Jaganmohana Reddy S/o. Sri Peda Pereddy,
    R/o. Pasalapudi Village, Rayavaram Mandal,
    East Godavari District.

..PETITIONER

VS.

$    Karri Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o. Sri Subbi Reddy,
      R/o. Pasalapudi Village, Rayavaram Mandal,
      East Godavari District.

                                                                            ..RESPONDENT


! Counsel For The Petitioner: Sri N. Siva Reddy


^ Counsel For Respondent:  Smt. K. Sesharajyam
         
< Gist :


> Head Note :


?  CITATIONS :














  THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY
 
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.885 OF 2010

ORDER

The petitioner/plaintiff filed this revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 16.02.2010 passed in O.S.No.304 of 2006 by the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, sustaining the objection taken by the defendant with regard to marking of agreement of sale dated 1.11.2006 based on which the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale was filed.
The facts that gave raise to institution of this revision petition, are that 
the document, namely, agreement of sale dated 1.11.2006, which was sought to be marked, was written on the white paper affixed with adhesive stamps and was not executed by impressed stamp paper. 
When the same was sought to be marked the defendant raised an objection. 

The said objection was sustained by the trial Court holding that
Section (11) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short ‘the Act’) defines ‘duly stamped’. Section 2(13) defines ‘impressed stamp’. Rule 17 of the Indian Stamp Rules, 1925 (for short ‘the Rules’) defines Special Adhesive stamps to be used in certain cases and what instrument they can be used. 
The document in question, being an agreement of sale, is not included in the said Rule where adhesive stamps can be used. 
Further Rule 13 of the Rules provides as to and for what instrument adhesive stamps can be used, but the said Rule also do not include the agreement of sale, which is coming within the Article 6 of Schedule-1A of the Act. 
Therefore, the objections have to be sustained giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to send it to the Collector for proper certification as required under
Section 37 read with 18 of the Act.
Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
 sub-section 26 of Section 2 of the Act defines ‘stamp’, 
which means any mark, seal or endorsement by ay agency or person duly authorized by the State Government, and 
includes an adhesive or impressed stamp, for the purpose of duly chargeable under this Act. 
The said provision was inserted with effect from 10.09.2004. 
Therefore, the same can be treated as stamp as defined under Section 2 (13) of the Act. 
Section 11 of the Act provides use of adhesive stamps
Rule 6 of the Rules provides 
every other instrument chargeable with duty shall, 
except as provided by Section 11 or by (Rules 10, 12 and 13), 
be written on paper on which a stamp of the proper value, not bearing the work “hundi” has been engraved or embossed. 
Rule 13(d) of the Rules provides 
instruments chargeable with duty under Articles 5(a) and (b) and 43 of Schedule I, Articles 5(a) and (b) and 38 of Schedule IA of Andhra Pradesh Stamp Rules. 
In view of the same, the adhesive stamps affixed on the agreement of sale comply with the statutory requirement, and rejection of the same by the lower Court is not at all correct.
To appreciate the above said contention, it is necessary to see the definitions of ‘duly stamped’, and ‘impressed stamp’.
Section 2(11) of the Act reads as under.
“Duly Stamped” :- “Duly stamped”, as applied to an instrument, means that the instrument bears an adhesive or impressed stamp of not less than the proper amount and that such stamp has been affixed or used in accordance with the law for the time being in force in [India].

          Section 2(13) of the Act reads as under:
“Impressed stamp”:- “Impressed stamp” includes, --
a)     labels affixed and impressed by the proper officer, and
b)     stamps embossed or engraved on stamped paper;
c)      impression by franking machine or any other such machine as the State Government or the Central Government, as the case may be, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify]

          Rule 13(d) of the Rules as applicable in Andhra Pradesh, specifies use of adhesive stamps on certain instruments.
          Under Article 5(a), (b), 13 and 43 of Schedule-I are equivalent to Article 5 (a), (b) and 38 of Schedule-IA of the A.P. Act.
Article 5(a) and (b) of Schedule-IA deals with agreement or memorandum of an agreement 
a)     if relating to the sale of a bill of exchange,
b)     if relating to the sale of a government security or share in an incorporated company or other body corporate.

Whereas Article 6 of Schedule-IA deals with Agreement or memorandum of an agreement not otherwise provided for.
Article 38 of Schedule-IA deals with note or memorandum sent by a broker or agent to his principal intimating the purchase or sale on account of such principle. 
Therefore, use of adhesive stamps under
Rule 13(d) of Rules on an agreement covered by Article 6 of Schedule-IA has not been included for use of adhesive stamps. 
Rule 17 of the Rules provides use of special adhesive stamps in certain cases as enumerated under Rule 17(a) to (g), which do not include agreement of sale for use of special adhesive stamps. 
Section 11 of the Act provides for use of adhesive stamps on the instrument enumerated therein, under a, b, c, d, and e which does not include agreement of sale. 
In view of the same, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once Rule 13(d) of the Rules provides use of adhesive stamps and the instrument chargeable with duty, cannot be sustained. 
The scheme enumerated as above specifically provide for use of adhesive stamps and impressed stamps on the document as aforementioned. 
In view of the same the lower Court rightly sustained the Objection. 
Merely because the definition ‘stamp’ under Section 2(26) of the Act has been amended by Act 2 of 2006, which came into force with effect from 10.09.2004, it does not fall under ‘impressed stamp’. 
Similarly, Section 2(13) the definition ‘impressed stamp’ does not include ‘adhesive stamps’.
The lower Court rightly sustained the objection. 
No illegality or infirmity is discernible in the impugned order passed by the lower Court warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

                                                                     ____________________
                                                            (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.)
13th August, 2010
Js.

L.R. Copy to be marked.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.