Stamp Duty Recovery by Sub Registrar
“A” makes an agreement with “B” for purchase of his plot but “B” dilly dallies after taking a substantial sum and therefore “A” institutes Specific Performance suit against “B” praying to the Court that “B” be directed to register the plot in favour of “A”. However during the proceedings “C” the brother of “A” claims that “A” had sold the plot to him long back and “C” in fact succeeds with the result that “A” loses his claim against “B”. While passing the order the Trial Court impounds the stamp paper used in the deal and refers it to the Sub Registrar for evasion of duty
‘A” files an appeal in High Court against the order and before the Trial begins “A” and “B” enter into a compromise and “A” relinquishes his claim on the Plot of “B”. The High Court acknowledges this compromise and makes a specific order nullifying the order of the trial Court
Even after this order the Trial Court sends the stamp paper to the Sub Registrar and the sub registrar institutes proceedings against “A” for evasion of duty.
“A” does not come to know of this proceeding and an ex parte order is made by the sub-registrar making a claim of an “X” amount of stamp duty supposed to be paid on the agreement
My queries
1. When the order of the Trial Court was nullified by the HC, was the TC justified on still referring the stamp paper to the sub-registrar?
2. Since “A” had approached the Trial Court with a prayer for Specific Performance of the agreement, does it not prove that “A” never wanted to evade the duty on the deal?
3. Since the plot is ultimately taken by “C” and not “A” is it not “C” who should be made to pay the stamp duty?
4. When the sub-registrar makes any claim on the stamp duty on any deal is it not mandatory that the stamp duty is recovered from the property in question? Or the occupiers of that property? Rather than the person who could never own that property
