# r\ GOPI KRISHNA TRIVEDI v. SUDAMA PRASAD OJHA

- **Citation:** [2008] 13 S.C.R. 10
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2008-09-01
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 5414 of 2008
- **Bench:** Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Dr. Mukundakam Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/r-gopi-krishna-trivedi-v-sudama-prasad-ojha-23687
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Stamp Act, 1899:
c
s. 2(14)- "Instrument"- Impounding of- Document containing terms and conditions of agreement for sale of immovable property - HELD.· High Court has rightly held that document in question being an agreement for sale, stamp duty will
have to be paid by treating the document to be an 'instrument'
D as defined in s. 2(14).

## Text

[2008] 13 S.C.R 10
r\
GOPI KRISHNA TRIVEDI
v.
SUDAMA PRASAD OJHA
(Civil Appeal No. 5414 of 2008)
B
SEPTEMBER 1, 2008
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ]
Stamp Act, 1899:
c
s. 2(14)- "Instrument"- Impounding of- Document containing terms and conditions of agreement for sale of immovable property - HELD.· High Court has rightly held that document in question being an agreement for sale, stamp duty will
have to be paid by treating the document to be an 'instrument'
D as defined in s. 2(14).
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5414
of 2008
From the Judgment and final Order dated 6.11.2006 of
E the High Court of Calcutta in C.O. No. 3122/2006
R.C. Gubrele, K.R. Gupta, Vivek Sharma, Nanita Sharma,
Satbir S. Pillania and Suresh Kumar Sharma for the Appellant.
S.K. Bhattacharya for the Respondent.
F
The Order of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.
Leave granted.
G
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court allowing the
revision petition filed by the respondent. In a Suit for specific
...
performance of the contract for sale of immovable property, the
H
10
GOPI KRISHNA TRIVEDI v. SUDAMA
11
PRASAD OJHA [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
present respondent took the stand that he had entered into an
A
oral agreement with the defendant, i.e. the present appellant
for purchase of the Suit property for a consideration of
Rs.6,01,000/-. Following the execution of the contract, an amount
of Rs.3,51,000/- was stated to have been paid. It was followed
by another payment of Rs.1, 11,618/-. The defendant acknowlB
edged the factum of acceptance of part payment of the consideration amount. When the Suit came up for hearing, the respondent came up with the application for accepting certain documents, i.e. the documents containing the terms and conditions
of agreement and certain rent receipts. The appellant took the c
stand that these documents cannot be admitted because there
was no payment of stamp duty. The Trial Court took the view
that the document is nothing but a letter incorporating the terms
and conditions of an agreement for sale of a property and the ·
receipts were just acknowledgment of the factum of acceptance 0
of money. Accordingly, the Trial Court refused to impound the
aforesaid documents.
Challenging the order, a revision petition was filed before
the High Court.
r::
Reliance was placed before the High Court on a decision
'-
of this Court in Brij Mohan and Ors. Vs. Sugra Begum and
Ors. (1990 (4) sec 147) to contend that when the vital and
fundamental terms of an agreement for sale of immovable property were effected through an oral agreement, the written agree-
-1
ment incorporating the terms and conditions of the oral agreeF
ment would be deemed to be a formal agreement only. Since
no rights or liabilities have been created through the document
incorporating the terms and conditions of oral agreement, it cannot be called to be an instrument either.
G
The High Court, after considering the rival submissions
and with reference to explanation appended to item No.5 of
;..
Schedule 1-A of Stamp Duty on Instruments in West Bengal,
concluded as follows:
.
''The purported letter contains all the terms and conditions
H
A
B
c
D
E
12
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 13 S.C.R.
of an agreement for sale of immovable property. What
were the terms and conditions of the alleged oral
agreement are not known. There is nothing on record to
show that rights and interest had been created following
execution of an oral agreement. What we find is the
existence of a document incorporating of terms and
conditions of an agreement for sale of an immovable
property and receipts acknowledging receipts of
consideration amount. The agreements containing terms
and conditions for transfer of an immovable property, as
such, are required to be properly stamped in terms of the
recent amendment of Stamp Act in West Bengal.
Adequate stamp not having been paid, the trial court is
not right in making the observation that the documents in
question are not to be impounded. Since it is the
agreement for sale, stamp duty will have to be paid in
terms of Schedule 1A as amended. Right and liability
having been created or purported to have been created,
transferred and extended or recorded, the documents in
question will come within the meaning of "instrument" as
defined in Section 2(14) of the Indian Stamp Act."
Ultimately, the High Court held that right and liability having been created or purported to have been transferred and
extended or created, the documents in question come within·
the meaning of 'instrument' as defined in Section 2(14) of the
F Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short 'the Act'). Therefore, the revision petition was allowed and the Trial Court was directed to
take steps for impounding the documents before having been
the documents being marked as exhibits.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that essenG tially the dispute related to the terms and conditions in an oral
agreement and, therefore, the High Court was not justified in its
view.
Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,
H supported the judgment of the High Court.
)
GOPI KRISHNA TRIVEDI v. SUDAMA
13
PRASAD OJHA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
In view of what has been stated in Brij Mohan's case (suA
pra), the High Court was right in holding that the document in
question being an agreement for sale, stamp duty will have to
be paid by treating the document to be an 'instrument', as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act.
The appeal fails and is dismissed.
B
R.P.
Appeal dismissed.