Chhattisgarh High Court: Collector Declining To Exercise Power Under Proviso To Section 48B Stamp Act, Doesn’t Curtail Court’s Power To Impound Document
The Chhattisgarh High Court set aside an Order, whereby an Application moved by the Plaintiffs under Section 151 of the CPC for impounding of the document was rejected.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that the Collector declining to exercise his power according to the proviso to Section 48B of the Stamp Act, does not curtail the power of the Court to impound a document as per Section 33 of the Stamp Act.
The Court set aside an Order, whereby an Application moved by the Plaintiffs under Section 151 of the CPC for impounding of the document was rejected. The Collector had communicated to the Trial Court that the documents in question were executed five years prior to their presentation, and therefore, according to Section 48B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (the Act), recovery of deficit stamp duty was not appropriate.
A Single Bench of Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey held, “In the present case, the documents were referred to the Collector (Stamps) by the learned Trial Court and he declined to exercise his power according to the proviso to Section 48B of the Stamp Act, but the decision taken by the Collector (Stamps) would not curtail the power of the Court to impound the document according to the Section 33 of the Stamp Act. The legislature has conferred the power to the Court to adjudicate proper stamp duty and penalty, if any, while impounding the document and thereafter for recovery proceedings, the documents can be referred to the Collector (Stamps).”
Advocate Somnath Verma appeared for the Petitioners, while Advocate PR Patankar represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration of title and possession over the suit property based on a registered sale deed. They also sought relief for permanent injunction and damages. The Plaintiffs claimed the suit property was partitioned between them, with an agreement and a conditional deed executed in 1966, and a partition deed in 1973.
The Defendants filed a written statement denying the plaint averments but admitted the fact of partition, while denying its date of execution. The Petitioners applied for impounding the unregistered stipulation of conditional agreement. The Trial Court referred the documents to the Collector to ascertain deficit stamp duty.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court held, “The Court while exercising power under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 may refer the document to decide the issue as to whether the document is duly stamped or not. The legislature has conferred the power to the Court to adjudicate proper stamp duty and penalty while impounding the document & bar of Limitation contemplated in Section 48 B of the Act, 1899 would not attract.”
The Bench remarked, “With regard to the objection raised by Mr. Patankar that the application under Section 151 CPC was moved by the petitioners after a lapse of three years, in the opinion of this Court, the technicalities should not defeat the justice. The petitioners produced the original document along with an application for impounding the document, the learned trial Court ought to have exercised the power under Section 33 of the Stamp Act and after impounding the documents, the documents could have been referred to the Collector (Stamps) for assessing the deficit stamp duty.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and law, in the opinion of this Court, the order passed by the learned trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of the law, therefore, the same is hereby set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to decide the application moved by the petitioner for impounding the documents afresh in the light of observations made herein above. Interim order, if any, granted by this Court is hereby vacated.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petittion.
Cause Title: Shyamlal & Anr. v. Rambai & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:13893)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocate Somnath Verma
Respondents: Advocate PR Patankar; Panel Lawyer Shubham Bajpai