Research › Browse › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

1995 DIGILAW 18 (BOM)

Balasaheb s/o. Sahebrao Jadhav v. Hanumant s/o. Bhaurao Deshmukh

1995-01-12

A.D.MANE

body1995
JUDGMENT - A.D. MANE. J.:---On 21-6-1993 the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the contract for sale of the land. The petitioner-plaintiff has averred that the defendant under the agreement of sale dated 25-2-1990 agreed to sell the suit land for a consideration of Rs. 48,000. That agreement of sale has been reduced to writing on a stamp paper of Rs. 10/-. The plaintiff produced the said document alongwith the plaint. The learned trial Judge, however, on perusing the document purported to be agreement of sale suo motu raised an objection that in view of Explanation to Article 25 of the Bombay Stamp Act the plaintiff was required to pay deficit stamp with penalty of 10% thereon. This civil revision application is, therefore, directed against the said order passed on 13-10-1993 by the learned trial Judge. 2. It may be stated that the learned trial Judge has totally misread the provision of Article 25 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. Article 25 applies only in a case where property is transferred to any person. The explanation to Article 25 and the proviso thereto also presupposes that the property must be transferred in accordance with law. It is elementary that sale is a transfer of property for price paid or promised to pay or part paid and part promised to pay but a contract for sale of an immoveable property is a contract for the sale of such property which takes place on the terms settled between the parties. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act clearly provides that the contract for sale does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on the property. Therefore, the agreement or the contract for sale is a document which falls outside Article 25 of the Bombay Stamp Act. The learned trial Judge has, therefore, committed a clearly an error of law in passing the impugned order. The impugned order is therefore, quashed and set-aside. The revision application is allowed. Rule is made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs. The trial Court shall proceed with the suit as expeditiously as possible. Revision allowed. *****