section 17 of registration act1908
AJIT KAWATKAR
(Querist) 11 June 2009
This query is : Resolved
can any listed hon'ble lawyersgive me full text of a case ref.5 SCC 725 AIR 1999 sc 807 veena hasmukh jain v/s state of maharashtra. i have brief note of jdmnt.:-"agreemnt for sale of flat +delivery of possession could be construde to be a conveyance." thanks.
Manish Singh
(Expert) 11 June 2009
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.A. No. 1655 of 1996
Decided On: 28.01.1999
Appellants:Veena Hasmukh Jain & Anr.
Vs.
Respondent: State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Hon'ble Judges:
S.P. Bharucha andS. Rajendra Babu, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: M.S. Bhandari and A.M. Khanwilkar, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: M.S. Nargolkar, and D.M. Nargolkar, Advs.
Subject: Commercial
Subject: Property
Catch Words
Mentioned IN
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 - Sections 2 and 32A; Maharashtra Ownership Flats(Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 - Sections 4 and 11; Indian Registration Act, 1908 - Section 17(1); Bombay Stamp(Determination of True Market Value of Property) Rules, 1981 - Rule 3(1); Maharashtra Apartments Ownership Act, 1970
Case Note:
Commercial - title - Section 11 of Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 - whether document of agreement to sell is document conveying right, title and interest of flat in favour of appellants - clear that in terms of agreement there is no provision made at all for execution of conveyance - Section 11 could be applied to agreement therefore conveyance could be executed subsequently - clear that document would attract duty as if it is conveyance as provided in Explanation - held, not necessary to examine whether instrument itself conveys title or not.
JUDGMENT
Rajendra Babu, J.
1. The question raised for consideration in these appeals is identical as to the duty payable under the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 on an agreement for sale of flats covered by the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 [hereinafter referred to as 'the MOP Act' and the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970.
2. A Writ Petition before the High Court to Bombay was filed by the appellants on the allegation that on October 8, 1987 they entered into an agreement for purchase of a flat with one M/s Century Enterprises. The agreement for sale was executed in terms of Section 4 of the MOF Act. It was lodged for registration on November 3,1987 as required under Section 4 of the MOF Act read with Section 17(1) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. The consideration disclosed in the agreement was shown at Rs. 3,75,000 for the purpose of purchase of the flat and a registration fee of Rs. 3,750 was paid in addition to copying fee and postal charges. The Sub-Registrar of Bombay, by a letter sent to the appellants in February 1988, informed them that the agreement had been impounded and being sent to the Superintendent of Stamps, Bombay. There was also a communication sent by the Assistant Director of Town Planning, Stamp and Valuation dated March 9, 1990 in terms of Rule 3(1) of the Bombay Stamp (Determination of True Market Value of Property) Rules, 1981 to the appellants informing them that he had received a reference from the Collector under Section 32A of the Bombay Stamp Act for determination of true market value of the property and he had reason to believe that the market value of the property had not been truly and fully set out. The first appellant by a reply sent on October 26, 1990 stated inter alia various contentions that the document in question is only an agreement for sale and no right, title or interest passed on to the appellants so as to attract duty as a conveyance and/or instrument; that Section 32A of the Bombay Stamp Act had no application; that the appellant was not liable for duty under Entry 25 of Schedule I of the Bombay Stamp Act; that the agreement for sale had been executed under Section 4 of the MOF Act and in terms of the said provision it was mandatory to register the same under Section 17(1) of the Indian Registration Act; that the provisions of the Bombay Stamp Act were not applicable and consequently proceedings under Se
