Registration Act, 1908 – s.89(4) and s.17(2)(xii) – Stamp Act – Arts. 18 and 23 of first Schedule – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXI Rule 94 – Successful auction purchaser – Sale certificate issued – Whether it is mandatory to deposit stamp duty in view of the provisions of the Stamp Act and the Registration Act:
Held: The position of law is settled that a sale certificate issued to the purchaser in pursuance of the confirmation of an auction sale is merely evidence of such title and does not require registration under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act – It is not the issuance of the sale certificate which transfers the title in favour of the auction purchaser – The title is transferred upon successful completion of the sale and its confirmation by the competent authority after all the objections against the sale have been disposed of – Further, various decisions of the Supreme Court makes it clear that sale certificate issued by the authorised officer is not compulsorily registrable – Mere filing under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act itself is sufficient when a copy of the sale certificate is forwarded by the authorised officer to the registering authority – However, a perusal of Articles 18 and 23 respectively of the first schedule to the Stamp Act respectively makes it clear that when the auction purchaser presents the original sale certificate for registration, it would attract stamp duty in accordance with the said Articles – As long as the sale certificate remains as it is, it is not compulsorily registrable – It is only when the auction purchaser uses the certificate for some other purpose that the requirement of payment of stamp duty, etc. would arise. [Paras 17, 20]
Constitution of India – Art.226 – Exercise of jurisdiction u/Art.226, when alternate remedy is available:
Held: It is settled that an alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law – It was held that when a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution – However, this Court clarified that this rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion and if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with. [Para 21]
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.
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.