Gopi Krishna Trivedi v. Sudama Prasad Ojha

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma
Judgment Date: 2008-09-01
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Gopi Krishna Trivedi

Respondents

Sudama Prasad Ojha

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• R.C. Gubrele
• K.R. Gupta
• Vivek Sharma
• Nanita Sharma
• Satbir S. Pillania
• Suresh Kumar Sharma

Counsels for Respondents

• S.K. Bhattacharya

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Civil Appeal challenges a Calcutta High Court order allowing the respondent’s revision petition and directing the Trial Court to impound documents that the parties described as containing the terms and conditions of an alleged sale agreement. The central issue is whether the documents, though framed as letters and receipts, constitute an “instrument” under Section 2(14) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and thus attract stamp duty. The High Court held that the documents contain the terms and conditions of an agreement for sale of immovable property and that stamp duty must be paid, relying on the amendment of Schedule 1-A of the West Bengal Stamp Act (item 5) to classify such documents as instruments and to permit impounding if inadequately stamped. The appellant argued that the dispute concerns terms of an oral agreement and that the writing merely embodies those terms, not creating any new rights or liabilities; accordingly, no instrument. The respondent contended that the documents actually set out the terms and conditions of the sale and reflect receipt of consideration, thereby creating rights and liabilities and constituting an instrument payable with stamp duty. The Supreme Court endorsed the High Court’s view that the documents are instruments under Section 2(14) and that stamp duty is payable, leading to dismissal of the appeal.

Provisions of Law Cited

Indian Stamp Act, 1899, Section 2(14)West Bengal Stamp Act, Schedule 1-A, item 5 (as amended)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the dispute concerns terms of an oral agreement for sale and that the documents, consisting of letters and receipts, merely memorialize those terms without creating distinct rights or liabilities. They argue that such writing cannot be stamped as an instrument under Section 2(14) and that reliance on amendments to the West Bengal Stamp Act is misplaced, since no essential terms were sufficiently crystallized in writing to constitute an instrument. Consequently, impounding of these documents for non-payment of stamp duty is unwarranted and the documents cannot be treated as instruments.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent contends that the documents contain the terms and conditions of a sale agreement and reflect the receipt of consideration, thereby creating rights and liabilities. They argue that, under Section 2(14) of the Indian Stamp Act, such documents qualify as instruments for stamp duty purposes, and the amended Schedule 1-A of the West Bengal Stamp Act classifies these documents as instruments requiring adequate stamp duty. The High Court’s reasoning, supported by the relevant amendment, is that the documents are instruments deserving of stamping and impounding if inadequately stamped.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Brij Mohan and Ors. Vs. Sugra Begum and Ors.	1990 (4) sec 147	Positive	The Court cited this decision to support the view that where the terms of an oral agreement for sale are reduced to a written form, the document embodying those terms can be treated as an instrument for stamp duty purposes, thereby requiring stamp duty.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

_r\_ [2008] 13 S.C.R 10 ## GOPI KRISHNA TRIVEDI _v._ SUDAMA PRASAD OJHA (Civil Appeal No. 5414 of 2008) B SEPTEMBER 1, 2008 **[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ]** _Stamp Act, 1899:_ c s. _2(14)- "Instrument"- Impounding of- Document containing terms and conditions of agreement for_ sale _of immovable property_ - _HELD.· High Court_ has _rightly held that document in question being an agreement for_ sale, _stamp duty will have to be paid by treating the document to be an 'instrument'_ D as _defined in_ s. _2(14)._ CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5414 of 2008 From the Judgment and final Order dated 6.11.2006 of E[the ][High ][Court of Calcutta ][in ][C.O. ][No. ][3122/2006 ] R.C. Gubrele, K.R. Gupta, Vivek Sharma, Nanita Sharma, Satbir S. Pillania and Suresh Kumar Sharma for the Appellant. S.K. Bhattacharya for the Respondent. F The Order of the Court was delivered by **Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.** Heard learned counsel for the parties. Leave granted. G Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court allowing the revision petition filed by the respondent. In a Suit for specific performance of the contract for sale of immovable property, the ... H 10 GOPI KRISHNA TRIVEDI _v._ SUDAMA PRASAD OJHA [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 11 present respondent took the stand that he had entered into an A oral agreement with the defendant, i.e. the present appellant for purchase of the Suit property for a consideration of Rs.6,01,000/-. Following the execution of the contract, an amount of Rs.3,51,000/- was stated to have been paid. It was followed by another payment of Rs.1, 11,618/-. The defendant acknowlB edged the factum of acceptance of part payment of the consideration amount. When the Suit came up for hearing, the respondent came up with the application for accepting certain documents, i.e. the documents containing the terms and conditions of agreement and certain rent receipts. The appellant took the c stand that these documents cannot be admitted because there was no payment of stamp duty. The Trial Court took the view that the document is nothing but a letter incorporating the terms and conditions of an agreement for sale of a property and the · receipts were just acknowledgment of the factum of acceptance 0 of money. Accordingly, the Trial Court refused to impound the aforesaid documents. A B Challenging the order, a revision petition was filed before the High Court. . -1 ;.. r:: '- Reliance was placed before the High Court on a decision of this Court in _Brij Mohan and Ors. Vs. Sugra Begum and Ors._ (1990 (4) sec 147) to contend that when the vital and fundamental terms of an agreement for sale of immovable property were effected through an oral agreement, the written agreement incorporating the terms and conditions of the oral agreement would be deemed to be a formal agreement only. Since no rights or liabilities have been created through the document incorporating the terms and conditions of oral agreement, it cannot be called to be an instrument either. F G The High Court, after considering the rival submissions and with reference to explanation appended to item No.5 of Schedule 1-A of Stamp Duty on Instruments in West Bengal, concluded as follows: ''The purported letter contains all the terms and conditions H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. 12 c D A B E of an agreement for sale of immovable property. What were the terms and conditions of the alleged oral agreement are not known. There is nothing on record to show that rights and interest had been created following execution of an oral agreement. What we find is the existence of a document incorporating of terms and conditions of an agreement for sale of an immovable property and receipts acknowledging receipts of consideration amount. The agreements containing terms and conditions for transfer of an immovable property, as such, are required to be properly stamped in terms of the recent amendment of Stamp Act in West Bengal. Adequate stamp not having been paid, the trial court is not right in making the observation that the documents in question are not to be impounded. Since it is the agreement for sale, stamp duty will have to be paid in terms of Schedule 1A as amended. Right and liability having been created or purported to have been created, transferred and extended or recorded, the documents in question will come within the meaning of "instrument" as defined in Section 2(14) of the Indian Stamp Act." Ultimately, the High Court held that right and liability having been created or purported to have been transferred and extended or created, the documents in question come within· the meaning of 'instrument' as defined in Section 2(14) of the F Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short 'the Act'). Therefore, the revision petition was allowed and the Trial Court was directed to take steps for impounding the documents before having been the documents being marked as exhibits. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that essenG tially the dispute related to the terms and conditions in an oral agreement and, therefore, the High Court was not justified in its view. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, H supported the judgment of the High Court. _)_ 13 GOPI KRISHNA TRIVEDI _v._ SUDAMA PRASAD OJHA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] In view of what has been stated in Brij Mohan's case (supra), the High Court was right in holding that the document in question being an agreement for sale, stamp duty will have to be paid by treating the document to be an 'instrument', as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. The appeal fails and is dismissed. R.P. Appeal dismissed. A B