- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Thiruvengadathamiah v. Mungiah And Anr.
Factual and Procedural Background
The Registrar's office has been requiring parties to pay the stamp duty leviable upon a partition under the Stamp Act, 1899, Schedule I, Article 45 before issuing the final decree in a partition suit, on the ground that such a decree is a "final order" effecting a partition within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Act. The plaintiff's vakil argued that the duty was not chargeable on the decree in the present case because the decree was not a "final order" within that definition, claiming that "final order" means an order made in execution delivering the parties their shares. The decree in question is a consent decree reciting a razinamah, allots specific properties to the parties, directs delivery of possession, and provides for execution of a sale deed and lease of certain immovable property. The Registrar directed that stamp paper be produced within seven days.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a partition decree that vests specific portions of property in particular parties (including a consent decree reciting a razinamah) is a "final order" within Section 2(15) of the Stamp Act, 1899 and therefore chargeable with stamp duty as an "instrument of partition."
- Whether the term "final order" in Section 2(15) is confined to an order made in execution delivering actual possession of shares, or also includes decrees that effectuate the division by allotting specific properties to co-owners.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The decree is not a "final order" within Section 2(15) because "final order" should mean an order made in execution that delivers to the parties the shares determined by the decree (i.e., an order effecting actual delivery in execution).
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Jotindra Mohan Tagore v. Bejoy Chand Mahalap (1905) I.L.R. 32 Calc. 483 | Principle that an order which only declares rights and directs further proceedings for ascertainment or demarcation does not amount to an instrument effecting partition; courts should, after determining specific shares, pass a final decree allotting particular property to each co-sharer. | The court relied on this decision to distinguish interim or declaratory orders from final decrees that vest specific portions, endorsing the view that a final decree must allot particular properties to co-sharers to be chargeable. |
| Balaram v. Chiloji (1905) I.L.R. 29 Bom. 366 | Support for the proposition that a decree which vests specific portions in parties is chargeable as an instrument of partition. | The court cited this decision as authority for holding that the present decree, which vests specific properties in parties, is chargeable with duty as an instrument of partition. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court interpreted "final order" in Section 2(15) to require an order that effects an actual division of the property by vesting specific portions in particular parties. Orders that merely declare rights and direct further proceedings for ascertainment or demarcation do not effect partition within the meaning of the provision. The court considered that after shares are determined the Court should pass a final decree allotting particular, ascertained property to each co-sharer; subsequent proceedings on such a final decree would relate only to delivery of possession or execution of documents and would be proceedings in execution rather than proceedings effecting partition. The present decree is a consent decree reciting a razinamah, allotting specific properties, directing delivery of possession, and providing for execution of sale and lease documents; thus it vests particular portions in parties. Relying on the cited precedents, the court concluded that this decree effects an actual partition and falls within Section 2(15). The court noted a contrary view expressed by Wallis, J., in Original Suit No. 70 of 1906 that "final order" applies to some order made in execution, observing that a Full Bench decision was not brought to that judge's notice. The court also treated the consent decree as the formal record of an agreement among co-owners to divide property in severalty, bringing it within the first part of Section 2(15).
Holding and Implications
The decree effects an actual partition of the property among the parties and is chargeable with stamp duty as an instrument of partition under Section 2(15) of the Stamp Act, 1899.
Consequences: The parties must produce the requisite stamp paper within seven days. Any proceedings subsequent to the decree are limited to obtaining actual possession or executing documents relating to the specifically allotted properties. The opinion applies established authority to the facts and does not purport to create a new legal principle beyond this application.
1. It has been the practice in the Registrar's office to require the parties to pay the stamp duty leviable upon a partition under the Stamp Act. 1899, schedule I, Article 45 before the issue of the final decree in a partition suit, on the ground that the decree is a final order for effecting a partition passed by a Civil Court within the meaning of Section 2 (15) of the Act, which defines an "instrument of partition."
2. The learned vakil for the plaintiff has argued that the duty is not chargeable upon the decree in this case, since it is not a final order within this definition, and that final order means an order made in execution delivering to the parties the shares which have been determined by the decree of the Court.
3. To make an order chirgeabla under the section it must effect an actual division of the property and therefore an order declaring the rights of the parties and directing further proceedings for the ascertainment of the specific portion to be taken by each party, or for the demarcation of a share of immoveabla property by metes and bounds, will not fall within the section. The Courts have sometimes passed such interim orders and directed further proceeding to be in execution, but this procedure is irregular, and the Court should, after the specific share of each co-sharer has been determined, pass the final order or decree allotting a particular and ascertained property to each co-sharer and vesting it in him [See Jotindra Mohan Tagore v. Bejoy Chand Mahalap (1905) I.L.R. 32 Calc. 483]. Further proceedings on such a final order will be for delivery of possession merely and in execution, and will not be for effecting a partition. A final order of this kind will be analagous to a final order of the Collector, under Section 263 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, effecting a partition of an undivided estate paying revenue to Government.
4. The decree in the present case recites a razinamah executed by the parties and is made by consent of parties; and the decretal portion allots specific properties to the several parties and directs other parties to deliver up possession, and also provides for the execution of a sale deal and lease of certain immoveable property.
5. In my opinion the decree effects an actual partition of the property among the parties, i.e., it vests specific portions of the estate in particular parties, and is therefore the final order in the suit effecting a partition, and is accordingly chargeable with duty as an instrument of partition [see Balaram v. Chiloji (1905) I.L.R. 29 Bom. 366]
6. Any proceedings subsequent to this decree can only be for the purpose of obtaining actual possession of, or the execution of documents relating to, specific properties.
7. I have been Preferred to a judgment of Wallis, J., in Original Suit No. 70 of 1906 in which he expresses the opinion that "final order" in section 2(15) applies to some order of the Civil Court made in execution: but the above case which is a decision of a Pull Bench does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the learned Judge.
8. I am also of opinion that the decree in the present case, being a consent decree, is an instrument whereby the co owners have agreed to divide property in severalty since it is the formal record of an agreement entered into by the parties, and that it falls within the first part of section 2 (15).
9. The stamp paper is directed to be brought in within seven days.
Alert