LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/ramesh-mishrimal-jain-vs-avinash-vishwanath-patne-anr-20250214/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Ramesh Mishrimal Jain vs Avinash Vishwanath Patne & Anr.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
14 February 2025
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 2549 of 2025
Result
Dismissed
Bench
J.B. Pardiwala, R Mahadevan
Citation
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 670 : 2025 INSC 213
Acts & Sections
Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 TP Act
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 2 S.C.R. 670 : 2025 INSC 213
Issue for consideration
Whether the appellant is liable to pay stamp duty and penalty on the agreement to sell dated 03.09.2003 allegedly executed between the appellant and the mother of respondent no.1 in respect of the suit property.
Headnote

Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 – Explanation I to Article 25 – Appellant filed suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 03.09.2003 – Respondents filed an application u/s.34 of the 1958 Act for impounding the document – Trial Court allowed the said application, impounded the sale agreement dated 03.09.2003 and directed the document to be sent to the Registrar of Stamps for recovery of the stamp duty and penalty on it as per law – Appellant challenged the same by filing writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court – Correctness:

Held: In the instant case, the agreement to sell executed between the appellant and mother of the respondent no.1, stated that the suit property was occupied by the appellant on a rental basis and it would not be a part of the sale transaction – Further, there was a clause, by which, timeline was given for execution of sale deed – Since the possession was admittedly given to the appellant even before the date of agreement, implying acquisition of possessory rights protected u/s.53A of the Transfer of Property Act, the same requires payment of proper stamp duty – The agreement to sell includes a clause stating that physical possession had already been handed over to the appellant, regardless of the basis of such possession – This satisfies the requirement to treat the instrument as a ‘conveyance’ within the meaning of Explanation I to Article

25 of Schedule I of Bombay Stamp Act, with only the formality of executing the sale deed remaining – Pertinently, it is to be pointed out that the appellant filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell against the respondents; respondent no.1 filed a suit seeking eviction of the appellant from the subject property; and both the suits are pending, which clearly establish the possession of the property by the appellant – Therefore, the said document is liable for payment of stamp duty at the hands of the appellant – The Courts below rightly impounded the document and directed the same to be sent to the Registrar of Stamps for recovery of deficit stamp duty and penalty as per law, by the orders impugned herein. [Paras 11, 12]

Keywords: Agreement to sell · Conveyance · Explanation I to Article 25 of Schedule I of Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 · Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act · Recovery of Deficit stamp duty · Penalty

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment R. Mahadevan, J. Leave granted. 2. The challenge made in this appeal is to the order dated 29.08.2019, by which the High Court of Judicature at Bombay1 dismissed Writ Petition No.3246 of 2016. As a consequence thereof, the order dated 03.08.2015 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ratnagiri,2 was upheld. The trial Court in its order dated 03.08.2015 had allowed the application filed by the respondents and impounded the document (Exhibit 30) i.e., agreement to sell dated 03.09.2003 in respect of the property comprising House No.78/B/8 (18 x 9 feet) and an adjoining
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →