Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 3, 18, 32, 33, 35 -- Impounding a power of attorney (UK)  – Deficient stamp duty – Right to pay deficient stamp duty and penalty -- Section 35 of the Act empowers the trial Court to direct the party who wants the documents to be acted upon, to pay stamp duty or the deficient portion together with penalty as detailed therein -- Time limit of three months provided under Section 18 and clause (b) of Section 32 is not attracted -- Petitioner permitted to pay the stamp duty and penalty.

(Para 13-14)

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 47A – Deficient stamp duty – Limitation -- Sale deed was registered and the reference was made by the Sub-Registrar to the Collector pertaining to alleged deficiency in stamp duty after a period of 9 years – Writ petition allowed and impugned orders quashed.

(Para 1-6)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Ad-valorem court fee – Rejection of plaint -- Suit for declaration challenging sale deed -- Plaintiff-petitioner is the executant of the registered sale deed -- Merely because the plaintiff-petitioner is not seeking possession would not entitle him from escaping from the rigors of affixing ad valorem court fee – Order directing plaintiff-petitioner to affix ad valorem court fee, upheld.

(Para 2, 7, 8)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 -- Ad-valorem court fee -- Suit for declaration qua the suit property to be coparcenary property of Joint Hindu Family of the parties and also challenged to the transfer deed -- Relief of permanent injunction also sought – Transfer deed was not executed by the petitioners/ plaintiffs and possession was not sought -- No ad valorem Court fee, is required to be filed.

(Para 2, 12, 13)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7(i) – Advalorem court fee -- Suit for damages of specific amount – Court fee is payable according to the amount claimed.

(Para 12)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint -- Only the averments made in the plaint are to be considered -- Defence taken by the other party in the written statement or otherwise would be wholly irrelevant at this stage -- There cannot be any dissection or segregation of the language of various paragraphs in the plaint.

(Para 9)

B. Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 – Ad-valorem court fee -- Petitioners were not executants of the sale deeds and power of attorney in question -- Petitioners have sought declaration to the effect that they are joint owners and in joint possession of the suit property, which was ancestral in the hands of their father qua them -- Petitioners have also sought decree for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from creating charge over the suit property and further restraining them from interfering in the peaceful possession of petitioners over the suit property -- Reading of plaint, nowhere suggests that the petitioners being ousted from the suit property are claiming its possession/ joint possession -- Petitioners cannot be asked to affix advolrem Court fee.

(Para 10-13)

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 18, 20 – Family Courts Act, 1984 (66 of 1984), Section 7 -- Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 – Ad-valorem court fee – Charge for maintenance -- Suit for grant of maintenance and for declaration that the plaintiffs have charge and creating charge over the properties and further for declaration that transfer deeds with regard to immovable property are illegal and null and void -- Proceedings initiated before the Family Court for the purpose of maintenance are petition in nature and not suit -- Petitioners are not liable to pay the ad valorem court fee.

(Para 2, 12, 15)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Advalorem court fees – Suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession over the suit property and sale deed is null and void and same be set aside with consequential relief of permanent injunction -- Dismissal of application under Order 7 Rule 11 by Trial court without noticing the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh’s case -- Impugned order is bad in law -- Revision allowed, impugned order set aside and the learned Trial Court directed to decide the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC afresh, in the light of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh’s case 2010 (12) SCC 112 = 2012(2) L.A.R. 333 = (2010) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 12547.

(Para 5, 6)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7(IV) – Court fee -- Suit for mandatory injunction with consequential relief of permanent injunction and to handover peaceful possession, mesne profit and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making alteration, addition, negotiating, leasing out and from alienating the suit property in any manner was decreed – In appeal respondents-plaintiff raised objection that petitioner-defendant had not affixed court fee on the total value of the suit land – Petitioner/ defendant directed to pay entire court fee by Ld. Appellate Court – Contention of petitioners/ defendants that they are in possession of only two rooms on the first floor of the house, therefore, they cannot be directed to pay court fee for the entire property – Dispute is qua entire house and petitioners are supposed to pay court fee in respect of entire claim – Revision dismissed.

(Para 2-8)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7(IV) – Advalorem court fee -- Suit for declaration that sale deed is wrong, illegal, null, void, ab initio, false and frivolous document -- Land in dispute is an agricultural land, the cheque given to the plaintiff towards sale consideration was dishonoured and he has set up a case that he is in possession of the property and has not made any prayer for grant of decree of possession – Petitioner will pay the court fee 10 times of the revenue payable and not on the value of the property or the sale deed.

(Para 6-8)

A. Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17 -- Pre-existing rights – Declaration of -- Registration of document -- If document is regarding declaration of the pre-existing rights, the same is not compulsorily registerable in view of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.

(Para 9)

B. Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 65 -- Objection to insufficiently stamped document – Evidence to prove – Secondary evidence -- Court can allow the document to be read with the condition to pay the stamp duty along with some penalty -- If the Court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable, the Court can keep such evidence excluded from consideration -- There is no illegality in adopting such a course -- If the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document, the Court has to decide the objection before proceeding further -- Application moved by the plaintiff-petitioner seeking permission to lead secondary evidence by producing a photocopy of settlement (Iqrarnama) regarding domestic oral partition allowed, subject to proof of its existence and not in his possession.

(Para 9, 10)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 – Recovery of tentative amount/ damages -- Advalorem court fee -- Whenever the plaintiff files a money suit for recovery either as damages or otherwise his assessment is approximate or tentative which is subject to the final determination by the Court -- Liability to pay the court fee at the time of filing of the suit is not dependent upon the final determination by the Court -- Court fee is payable on the amount claimed in the suit -- Once the plaintiff has tentatively assessed the amount sought to be recovered in a money suit, Clause (i) of Section 7 of the 1870 Act, gets attracted.

(Para 9)

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 47A – Proceedings u/s 47A of Indian Stamp Act -- Limitation -- Sale deed executed in 2011, the proceedings were initiated in the year 2020, after about more than 9 years – Held, proceedings can be initiated within 3 years from the execution of the sale deed – Proceedings initiated clearly barred by limitation and could not have been initiated – Petition accepted, impugned order as well as the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner set aside.

(Para 9-11)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 16 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 -- Regular Second Appeal -- Compromise between the parties -- Court fee affixed in the appeal/ RSA directed to be refunded to the appellants as per the Rules.

(Para 7-12)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Court-fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Advalorem court fee – Rejection of plaint -- No doubt, respondents/ plaintiffs are not the executants of the sale deed under challenge, however, perusal of their Civil Suit clearly shows that they have filed a Civil “Suit for Declaration with consequential relief of Joint Possession” – Respondents are seeking joint possession of suit property -- Trial Court rejected the application – In revision held that Plaintiffs are liable to pay ad valorem Court fee on the suit property and 6 weeks’ time granted to make good the deficiency/deposit requisite Court fee; failing which their Civil Suit will be deemed to be rejected as per provision of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

(Para 10-14)

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 36, 61 -- Exhibition of insufficiently stamped documents – Evidential value -- Documents already having been exhibited without any objection from the respondents-defendants as also in view of the bar contained in Section 36 of the Act and no recourse having been taken u/s 61 of the Act, impugned order holding the documents Ex.P-3 and P-4 as not readable in evidence, set aside.

(Para 8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 151, Order 7 Rule 11 -- Rejection of plaint – Advalorem court fee -- Suit for declaration that release deed in favour of respondents-defendants No.1 and 2 is null and void – It is not the sale deed, which is challenged by the petitioner-plaintiff, but in fact, it is the release deed – Specific assertion in the plaint, about the release deed, to have been illegally and fraudulently got executed and registered without consideration -- Moreover, the stamp duty to be paid for registration of the such release deed of immoveable property in blood relation has also been waived off by the Haryana Government -- Even, the possession has also not been claimed by the petitioner-plaintiff – Petitioner-plaintiff is not required to pay ad valorem Court fee – Order allowing application under Order 7 Rule 11 set aside.

(Para 1, 11-15)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Undervalued court fees – Ground of rejection of plaint -- Maintainability of revision -- By impugned order an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC has been dismissed and the plea raised that Court fee appended is undervalued, has not been accepted -- Revision petition is not maintainable.

(Para 5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint -- Ad valorem court fee – Suit for damages -- No assessment of the damages given in the plaint -- In the heading as well as in the prayer clause, only a tentative amount has been mentioned -- In the plaint it has only been mentioned that the damages to the tune of at least Rs.5,00,000/- be awarded – Same being a totally vague statement cannot be treated as a quantification of the damages -- It is trite that the payment of ad valorem court fees is a matter between the plaintiff and the Court and the plaintiff-petitioner can be directed to pay the court fees as assessed after the relief is granted -- Tentative court fees affixed by the plaintiff-petitioner shall be accepted by the Court -- Exact amount of court fee payable shall be determined and paid at the time of passing of the decree.

(Para 7-9)

Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17(1)(g) (as amended by Tamil Nadu Amendment Act No.29 of 2012), 17(1A), 49 -- Suit for specific performance – Unregistered agreement to sell – Admissible in evidence -- Section 17(1)(g) of the Registration Act made agreement to sale of immovable property of the value of Rs.100/- and upwards compulsorily registrable – No corresponding amendment made to Section 49 of the Registration Act – Held, unregistered document may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument, however, subject to Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act -- High Court rightly observed and held that the unregistered Agreement to Sell in question shall be admissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance and the proviso is exception to the first part of Section 49.

(Para 5-13)

Haryana Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 (9 of 2006), Section 11 – Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 3(3), 49, 54 – Constitution of India, Article 265 -- Special Economic Zone – Exemption from stamp duty – Refund of stamp duty -- Stamp duty collected from respondent No.7 while registering the lease deed of plot situated in SEZ whereas charging of stamp duty in such a case is specifically exempted u/s 3(3) of the Indian Stamp Act and Section 11 of the SEZ Act – Held, and once the said instrument is exempted, charging of stamp duty for purposes of registration is without any authority of law and, therefore, would be violative of Article 265 of the Constitution of India – Action of the respondents No.1 to 6 in charging of stamp duty and thereafter illegally retaining the same is contrary to the provisions of law -- In case the stamp duty is not refunded, said respondent is held entitled of the same along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date, the same was deposited till the said amount is refunded.

(Para 11-12)

Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 78, 79 -- Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), Section 12-A -- Charitable Endowments Act, 1890 (6 of 1890), Section 2 -- Exemption of stamp duty/ registration charge to Charitable Trust -- Refund of stamp duty after sale deed – Jurisdiction of Sub-Registrar -- Stamp duty received contrary to the government instructions, the appellant being a Charitable institution would be entitled for the refund of the same -- Decision of the Sub-Registrar to reject the case on the ground that since the sale deeds had already been executed and therefore, it did not have the jurisdiction to refund the stamp duty cannot be sustained -- In the absence of any bar, no reason as to why the refund of stamp duty should not be granted -- Appellant to approach Sub-Registrar for fresh consideration seeking refund of stamp duty on its sale deeds.

(Para 9-15)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 149 – Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 4 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Delay in appeal – Condonation of delay – Insufficient funds for court fee – Ground of -- Application for condonation of delay dismissed as insufficient funds could not have been a sufficient ground for condonation of delay -- It would have been entirely a different matter had the appellant filed an appeal in terms of Section 149 CPC and thereafter removed the defects by paying deficit court fees.

(Para 9)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (8 of 1974), Section 2(4), 118 – Sale of agricultural land in Himachal Pradesh -- Private company is not an ‘agriculturist’ -- Approval was not given by the State Government and then the Company assigned his right to the plaintiff who thereafter filed the suit for specific performance -- No specific clause in the “Agreement to Sell”, which says that in case the purchaser fails to obtain required permission from the State Government, it could assign its rights to an agriculturist of Himachal Pradesh and the seller therefore would not have any objection in executing the Sale deed in favour of such an assignee -- No question of granting a decree of Specific Performance in favour of the plaintiff – Dismissal of suit upheld.

(Para 11-16)

C. Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (8 of 1974), Section 118 -- Sale of agricultural land in Himachal Pradesh -- Whole purpose of Section 118 of the 1972 Act is to protect agriculturists with small holdings -- Land in Himachal Pradesh cannot be transferred to a non-agriculturist, and this is with a purpose to save the small agricultural holding of poor persons and also to check the rampant conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes.

(Para 17)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34, 37, 39 -- Rejection of plaint -- Ad-valorem court fees -- Suit for declaration that the plaintiff-petitioners were entitled to get the respective sale agreements executed in their favour as well as for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction -- By impugned order Trial Court directed the plaintiff-petitioners to affix the ad valorem court fees treating it a suit for specific performance and for possession – Held, court fees is a matter between the plaintiff and the Court and in case at the time of final adjudication if the court fees is found to be deficit, the plaintiff-petitioners can always be asked to make good the court fees -- However, the case cannot be treated as a suit for specific performance at this stage -- Impugned order set aside.

(Para 2-6)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Rejection of plaint – Advalorem court fee – Pleading with respect to agricultural land -- In case of agricultural land, the market value shall be ten times the land revenue of the land – While deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only the contents of the plaint or the documents annexed therewith are to be seen -- Plaint does not mention anywhere that the suit property is agricultural land – Plaintiff-petitioner granted six weeks’ time to affix the ad-valorem court fee on the Collector rate of the suit property.

(Para 6-10)

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 3-C (Punjab) – Exemption from stamp duty -- Family transfer of agriculture land – Father to son – 3% additional stamp duty imposed – Exemption claimed by virtue of notification dated 21.12.2021 issued by Government of Punjab, stating that the stamp duty upon transfer of agricultural land, rural residential property to his Class-I heirs, during his lifetime, would be exempt – As the transfer deed had been executed by the father of the petitioner in the name of the petitioner pertaining to agricultural land, it would be exempt from additional stamp duty -- Impugned orders imposing the additional stamp duty are unsustainable -- Petition allowed, impugned orders set aside.

(Para 1-8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11, 151 – Suit for specific performance of agreement -- Rejection of plaint – Impounding of agreement -- Agreement to sale with possession – Deficient stamp duty – Prayer for rejection of plaint and impounding of agreement dismissed – Evidence of the case has already been concluded – No error in the reasoning of the learned Civil Judge that “if after the appreciation of evidence, court finds that possession is delivered to the plaintiff vide the impugned agreement then before pronouncement of the judgment, the deficiency in stamp duty can be fulfilled.” – Revision dismissed.

(Para 1, 14)

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 8, 11 –Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 – Civil suit -- Application for referring the matter to Arbitrator -- The provisions of Sections 8 and 11 of the Act are complementary to each other and there is no bar to invoke jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 11 (6) of the Act during pendency of the application u/s 8 of the Act.

(Para 3)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11(6) -- Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 16, 69-A -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 89 – Civil suit -- Settlement to refer the matter to Arbitrator-- Refund of court fees -- Refund of Court fee cannot be denied merely because the matter has not been settled before the Lok Adalat – Liberty granted to approach the trial Court for refund of the court fee in question and for availing the benefit under the Court Fee Act.

(Para 4-8)

A. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 56 -- General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), Section 3(10) -- Chief Controlling Revenue Authority -- ‘Chief Controlling Revenue Authority’ has not been defined under the Act of 1899 and, therefore, Section 3 Clause 10 of the General Clauses Act has to be read -- As per the said Clause, the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab , Chandigarh would be the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority for the purposes under this Act.

(Para 8)

B. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Sections 31, 40, 41, 47-A – Constitution of India, Article 227 – Deficient stamp duty -- Jurisdiction of Financial Commissioner -- Aggrieved against any order passed by the Collector in proceedings u/s 47-A of the Act, an appeal is to be filed u/s 47-A (4) of the Act before the Commissioner -- Only remedy available to the aggrieved party thereafter, would be to challenge the order of the Commissioner before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India -- Financial Commissioner (Revenue) exceeded his jurisdiction by deciding an issue -- Financial Commissioner (Revenue) could have exercised his jurisdiction upon an order passed by the Collector, when the Collector acts u/s 31, 40 and 41 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, whereas the order impugned before him was passed by the Commissioner exercising his jurisdiction upon an appeal filed under Section 47-A(4) of the Act of 1899 – Held, orders so passed was by a person not competent to do so and is thus, set aside -- Liberty given to challenge the orders afresh, within a period of two months before the appropriate forum.

(Para 10-13)

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 36, 61 -- Specific performance of agreement to sell – Deficient stamp duty – De-exhibition of document – Permissibility of -- Section 36 provides that once a document has been admitted in evidence without any objection from the other party, such document shall not, except as provided in Section 61 of the 1899 Act, be called in question, at any stage of the suit on the ground that the instrument has not been properly stamped --  Agreement to sell dated 07.03.2000, Entry No.5 of the Indian Stamp (Punjab Amendment) Act, 2001 was notified on 21.12.2001, whereas entry No. 23 was amended by the Indian Stamp (Punjab Amendment) Act 2007 w.e.f. 25.01.2008 -- Revision petition allowed, trial Court directed to proceed with the matter without insisting on the payment of deficient stamp duty or the penalty.

(Para 4-7)

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 47-A – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Registration of sale deed – Deficient stamp duty -- Reference after three years – Effect of -- Sale deed registered on 17.05.2013 by the Sub-Registrar but at that point of time, he did not impound the sale deed nor did he send a reference to the Collector as envisaged under Section 47-A (1) of the Indian Stamp Act -- Reference was made by the Sub-Registrar to the Collector on receipt of the audit report on 03.05.2016 and petitioners vide notice dated 23.05.2016 were called upon to appear in proceedings before the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, which notice was well beyond the period of three years -- Held, even if Section 47-A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act permits Collector to issue notice suo motu, it has to be done within a period of three years from the date of registration of the instrument – Collector took cognizance of reference beyond the period of three years – Impugned orders passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector and Commissioner, quashed -- Writ petition allowed.

(Para 7-11)

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 47-A – Deficient stamp duty – Limitation -- Reference was made by the Sub-Registrar on receipt of the audit report -- Petitioner was called upon to appear by notice which was well beyond the period of three years – Additional amount of Rs.3,12,193/- along with interest @12% towards deficient stamp duty ordered to be paid – Held, even if Section 47-A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act permits Collector to issue notice suo motu, it has to be done within a period of three years from the date of registration of the instrument -- Impugned orders passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector and Commissioner quashed -- Writ petition allowed.

(Para 1, 9-11)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 31, 34, 37 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 124 – Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 (iv)(c) -- Gift deed – Suit for declaration and permanent injunction -- Annulment of Gift deed – Advalorem court fee -- Gift is without consideration, and possession has not even been delivered and continues to be in the possession of the executant  -- Gift deed has been challenged on the ground of fraud -- No court fee is required to be paid.

(Para 9)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 31, 34, 37 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 124 – Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 (iv)(c) -- Gift deed – Suit for declaration and permanent injunction -- Annulment of Gift deed – Advalorem court fee -- Neither any consideration amount is involved nor relief of possession of the property is sought for, the petitioner/ plaintiff cannot be directed to pay ad-valorem court fee.

(Para 11)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 -- Suit for compensation/ damages for malicious prosecution – Advalorem-court fees – Trial Court directed the plaintiff-petitioner to affix ad valorem court fee on an amount of Rs.20 lakhs – Perusal of the plaint reveals that the damages are not being quantified, however, a vague statement has been made that the damages have been suffered by the plaintiff-petitioner of over Rs.20 lakhs -- However, in para it has clearly been stated that the exact value of the relief cannot be ascertained and the quantification of the damages would be determined by the Court, hence, a tentative court fee of Rs.50/- has been affixed with the plaint – Held, at the initial stage, in a suit for malicious prosecution, there cannot be any valuation in sure and certain terms and, hence, the Court is left with no other option at this stage but to accept the valuation offered by the plaintiff-petitioner -- Impugned order set aside, tentative court fee affixed by the plaintiff-petitioner shall be accepted by the Court and the Court shall proceed further with the suit in accordance with the law.

(Para 1, 8, 9)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 – Punjab Courts Act, 1918 (6 of 1918), Section 41 -- Regular Second Appeal – Substantial question of law – Requirement of -- There is no requirement for framing of substantial questions of law.

(Para 10)

B. Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17(1)(b), 49 – Transfer of immovable property – Compulsory registration – Requirement of -- Transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance / sale deed -- Without a stamped and registered deed of conveyance / sale deed, no right, title or interest in immovable property can be transferred -- Under the provisions of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 where immovable property of the value of more than 100/- is conveyed, such sale could only be effected by a document of sale duly registered -- Section 17(1)(b) mandates that any document which has the effect of creating and taking away the rights in respect of an immovable property must be registered and Section 49 of the said Act imposes a bar on the admissibility of an unregistered document and deals with the documents that are required to be registered u/s 17.

(Para 14, 15)

C. Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17(1)(b) – Transfer of immovable property by Pratigya Patra – Compulsory registration of – Requirement of -- Since, the ‘Pratigya Patras’ have the effect of creating and taking away the rights in respect of the suit property, they required registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 -- Since both the ‘Pratigya Patras’ have not been registered, they cannot be taken into account to the extent of the transfer of the suit property.

(Para 15)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 -- Suit for declaration challenging sale deed of agriculture land and prayer for possession – Advalorem Court fee – Requirement of -- Amendment in Section 7 applicable to suits filed in Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Delhi and Union Territory, Chandigarh -- As per the aforesaid amendment, in case of relief of possession of agricultural land, the Court fee is payable as per the land revenue.

(Para 4)

Court-fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1970), Section 7 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Suit for declaration – Challenge to sale deed alleging security document – Ad-valorem court fees – Requirement of -- Rejection of plaint – Application was allowed and it has been held that the plaintiff-petitioner is bound to pay ad-valorem court fee and granted one opportunity to make good the deficient court fee and if on the given date he would not do so then the plaint shall be rejected – Held, plaintiff-petitioner is the executant of the sale deed -- It is also the admitted fact that the sale deed bears his signatures and is a registered document – Argument that since the plaintiff-petitioner is in possession of the property and, hence, it is merely a decree of declaration and ad-valorem court fee is not to be affixed, is wholly untenable in law.

(Para 7, 8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Ad-valorem Court fees – Non-fixation of -- Rejection of plaint – Contention that plaintiff has claimed the quantified compensation/damages in the said Civil Suit and therefore, he was required to affix the requisite ad-valorem court-fee on the plaint accordingly whereas he has filed this Suit while affixing the court-fee of Rs.50/- only on the plaint and it being so, the impugned order is not legally sustainable and is liable to be set-aside – Defendant had no right to move the superior Courts by way of appeal or revision petition in the eventuality of the said question having been decided against him -- Revision petition deserves dismissal. Sri Rathnavarmaraja’s case 1961 AIR (SC) 1299 relied.

(Para 4, 5)

Constitution of India, Article 227 – Deficiency in ad-valorem court fee – Maintainability of revision -- Revision petition on behalf of defendants complaining deficiency in payment of the Court fee is not maintainable.

(Para 2)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Court-fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1970), Section 7 -- Ad valorem Court fee – Application for rejecting the plaint on account of non-payment of ad valorem Court fee -- Trial Court allowed the application and directed the plaintiff-petitioner to affix ad valorem Court fee – Relief sought by the plaintiff-petitioner is that he be declared owner of the subject matter of the sale deeds as property was purchased benami in favour of the defendant and relations between the plaintiff and the defendant have soured -- Plaintiff and defendant are husband and wife -- Plaintiff is seeking annulment of the sale deeds, which are subject matter of the suit and is, thus, required to affix ad valorem Court fee -- Held, trial Court was justified in passing the impugned order.

(Para 5)

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 47-A – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Stamp Duty and penalty imposed – Challenged in writ -- Delay and laches -- Opportunity of hearing – Joint sale deed -- One of the co-sharers has duly been served and has represented the matter before the concerned authority -- Even qua the present petitioner, as per the record, the notice was sent to him and it has been received by an adult member of the family -- Mere alleged non-receipt of a notice by the petitioner, cannot be any ground to set aside the order – Otherwise also, the petitioner not substantiated as to how the deficiency in the stamp duty paid by the petitioner has been wrongly assessed -- Order was passed in the year 2016, petition has been filed only in the year 2021 -- Petition suffers from delay and laches, as well -- No ground for interference, the present petition is dismissed.

(Para 2)

A. Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17(2)(vi) -- Succession after death – Suit for declaration -- Compromise beyond suit property – Registration of – Requirement of -- Whether a compromise decree in respect of land which is not the subject-matter of suit but is part of the settlement between the family members requires compulsory registration in terms of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908 – Parties are the sons of deceased – Compromise was between the two brothers consequent to death of their father and no right was being created in praesenti for the first time, thus not requiring compulsory registration.

(Para 7, 11)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 23 Rule 3 -- Suit for declaration -- Compromise beyond suit property – Permissibility of --  Compromise decree entered into between the parties in respect of land which was not the subject matter of the suit is valid and is thus a legal settlement.

(Para 8, 9)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 (i) – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Recovery suit as mandatory injunction – Advalorem court fee – Rejection of plaint – Prayer of -- Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC the court is entitled to carefully examine the contents of the plaint to arrive at a conclusion -- Plaintiff has claimed a definite amount of Rs.6,35,00,000/- -- Suit is for recovery although, styled as suit for mandatory injunction -- Ad valorem court fee is payable according to the amount claimed – Order of lower court, directing to pay the ad-valorem Court fee on the amount claimed  -- No ground to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 1, 10-15)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 – Suit for declaration and mandatory injunction – Consequential/ Substantive relief is for refund of excess amount charged/ Recovery suit -- Court fees -- Plaint was termed as being one for declaration and mandatory injunction, however, in effect what is sought is recovery of the excess amount alleged to have been paid by the plaintiff-petitioner -- Substantial relief claimed in the suit is for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,25,57,341/- charged in excess -- Plaintiff simply by playing around the words cannot avoid payment of Court fees.

(Para 7, 8)

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 7 -- Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 19 – Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 3, 33, 35 – Arbitration agreement -- Voidable contract – Unstamped agreement – Effect on arbitration clause -- Held, the decision in SMS Tea Estates (2011) 14 SCC 66 does not lay down the correct position in law on two issues i.e. (i) that an arbitration agreement in an unstamped commercial contract cannot be acted upon, or is rendered un-enforceable in law; and (ii) that an arbitration agreement would be invalid where the contract or instrument is voidable at the option of a party, such as u/S. 19 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Held,

-- since the arbitration agreement is an independent agreement between the parties, and is not chargeable to payment of stamp duty, the non-payment of stamp duty on the commercial contract, would not invalidate the arbitration clause, or render it un-enforceable, since it has an independent existence of its own -- The view taken by the Court on the issue of separability of the arbitration clause on the registration of the substantive contract, ought to have been followed even with respect to the Stamp Act -- The non-payment of stamp duty on the substantive contract would not invalidate even the main contract -- It is a deficiency which is curable on the payment of the requisite Stamp Duty.

-- second issue in SMS Tea Estates that a voidable contract would not be arbitrable as it affects the validity of the arbitration agreement, is not the correct position in law -- The allegations made by a party that the substantive contract has been obtained by coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation has to be proved by leading evidence on the issue -- These issues can certainly be adjudicated through arbitration.

(Para 6.8, 6.9)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 7, 9 – Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 3, 33, 35 – Arbitration agreement -- Unstamped agreement – Effect of -- If an application for urgent interim reliefs is filed u/s 9 before the Court, and it is brought to the attention of the Court that the substantive contract is not duly stamped, the Court would grant ad-interim relief to safeguard the subject-matter of the arbitration -- However, the substantive contract would then be impounded, and the concerned party be directed to take the necessary steps for payment of the requisite stamp duty in accordance with the provisions of the relevant Stamp Act, within a time-bound period.

(Para 7)

C. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 7 -- Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 2(i), (j), 19 – Arbitration agreement -- Voidable contract – Whether the fraudulent invocation of the Bank Guarantee is arbitrable? – In the case of voidable agreements, such disputes would be arbitrable, since the issue whether the consent was procured by coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation requires to be adjudicated upon by leading cogent evidence, which can very well be decided through arbitration -- Until it so proved and upheld as per Sections 2(i) and (j) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 such an agreement would remain enforceable, and is not void -- Allegations of fraud with respect to the invocation of the Bank Guarantee are arbitrable, since it arises out of disputes between parties inter se, and is not in the realm of public law.

(Para 8, 8.1-8.17)

D. Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 9, 37 -- Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (4 of 2016), Section 13(1A) – Maintainability of writ -- Statutory remedy of appeal available -- Writ Petition to challenge the Order passed by the Special Commercial Court / District Judge-I in Commercial Dispute was not maintainable, since a statutory remedy under the amended Section 37 of the Arbitration Act is available -- Section 37(1)(a) provides for an appeal to be filed against an Order refusing to refer the parties to arbitration -- Appeal would lie before the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

(Para 9)

E. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 7 -- Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 3, 33, 35 – Non-payment of stamp duty – Effect on Arbitration agreement -- Finding in SMS Tea Estates, (2011) 14 SCC 66 and Garware that the non-payment of stamp duty on the commercial contract would invalidate even the arbitration agreement, and render it non-existent in law, and un-enforceable, is not the correct position in law – In view of the finding in paragraph 92 of the judgment in Vidya Drolia in Civil Appeal No.2402 of 2019 decided vide Judgment dated 14.12.2020 by a co-ordinate bench, which has affirmed the judgment in Garware (2019) 9 SCC 209, the aforesaid issue is required to be authoritatively settled by a Constitution bench -- Following issue requires to be authoritatively settled by a Constitution bench of five judges of Supreme Court:

“Whether the statutory bar contained in Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 applicable to instruments chargeable to Stamp Duty under Section 3 read with the Schedule to the Act, would also render the arbitration agreement contained in such an instrument, which is not chargeable to payment of stamp duty, as being non-existent, un-enforceable, or invalid, pending payment of stamp duty on the substantive contract / instrument ? ”

(Para 12)

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 47-A – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Appeal u/s 47-A of the Act – Non-decisioning by Commissioner – Writ petition in the High Court -- Held, it is not open to authorities clothed with quasi-judicial powers to render infructuous the statutory remedies provided to aggrieved citizens by delaying the hearing of the cases filed before them – Direction given to the Commissioner, to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner-company on its own merits and in accordance with law and dispose of the same within six months -- In the meanwhile, the stay application be dispose by way of a reasoned order within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(Para 1-3)

A. Gift deed -- Deficiency in stamp duty – Penalty for -- Post-dated cheques – Acceptance of – Although deficiency of stamp duty was deposited through the Treasury Challan but the penalty was not deposited and only post-dated cheques were submitted -- High Court has rightly observed that facility to deposit the penalty by post-dated cheques cannot be approved.

(Para 16)

B. Gift deed -- Deficiency in stamp duty – Penalty for -- Subsequent purchaser – Liability of – Appellant being subsequent purchaser was liable to deposit the amount of penalty which was outstanding against the property and which was subject matter of the gift deed.

(Para 16)

A. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 40(1)(b) – Penalty of 10 times of the duty -- Power of -- Expression “an amount not exceeding ten times” is preceded by expression “if he thinks fit” -- Statutory scheme, thus, vest the discretion to the Collector to impose the penalty amount not exceeding ten times -- Whenever statute transfers discretion to an authority the discretion is to be exercised in furtherance of objects of the enactment -- Discretion is to be exercised not on whims or fancies rather the discretion is to be exercised on rational basis in a fair manner -- Amount of penalty not exceeding ten times is not an amount to be imposed as a matter of force -- Neither imposition of penalty of ten times under Section 40(1) (b) is automatic nor can be mechanically imposed.

(Para 17)

B. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 40(1)(b) – Penalty of 10 times of the duty – Nature of – Power of -- Purpose of penalty generally is a deterrence and not retribution -- When a discretion is given to a public authority, such public authority should exercise such discretion reasonably and not in oppressive manner -- Responsibility to exercise the discretion in reasonable manner lies more in cases where discretion vested by the statute is unfettered -- Imposition of the extreme penalty i.e. ten times of the duty or deficient portion thereof cannot be based on the mere factum of evasion of duty -- Reason such as fraud or deceit in order to deprive the Revenue or undue enrichment are relevant factors to arrive at a decision as to what should be the extent of penalty under Section 40(1)(b).

(Para 21)

Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17(2)(v) – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 115 -- Memorandum of family settlement for immovable property – Registration of – Requirement of –Estoppel -- Family settlement was arrived at in 1970 and also acted upon by the concerned parties – Document dated 10.3.1988 executed between the parties was merely a memorandum of settlement – It was not required to be registered -- In any case, contesting defendants were estopped from resiling from the stated arrangement in the subject memorandum, which had recorded the settlement terms arrived at in the past and even acted upon relating to all the existing or future disputes qua the subject property amongst the (signatories) family members despite absence of antecedent title to the concerned property.

(Para 16-19)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7(V)(a) -- Cancellation of agreement to sell – Ad valorem fees -- Plaintiff-petitioner is claiming cancellation of the agreement to sell and where, being an executant of the agreement to sell, he is seeking cancellation of the agreement, he would be required to pay ad valorem court fee -- By changing the phraseology from ''Cancellation'' to ''infructuous'', he cannot escape the payment of ad valorem court fees.

(Para 12, 13)