State Of M.P. vs Smt. Geetabai

The petitioner/State of M.P. has filed the present petition being aggrieved by order dated 15.12.2006 passed by Board of Revenue, Gwalior whereby the order dated 13.08.2002 passed by Collector, Stamp District Jhabua in appeal Nos.52/B-103/01-02 has been set aside.

Facts of the case in short are as under:-

The respondent approached the Civil Court by way of Civil Suit No.137-A/1997 for the relief of declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction in respect of house No.288/1, Ward No.4, Pratap Ganj Marg, Alirajpur against defendant nos.1 to 5. According to the plaintiff, she was in possession in the aforesaid house since lase 20 years to the knowledge of defendants and therefore, her right has been affected by way of adverse possession. During pendency of suit, compromise was arrived at between the parties and vide judgement and decree dated 16.05.1998, the suit had been decreed in favour of the plaintiff under the following directions:-

"राजीनामा अनुसार निम्न आज्ञाप्ति जारी की जाती है-अ-यह कि वादी आलीराजपुर प्रतापंगज मार्ग क्र.-1 वार्ड क्र-4 स्थित मकान नं.288 के पश्चिमी बाजू के आधे भाग जो कि राजेन्द्र कुमार रतनलाल टांडावाले के मकान से लगा हुआ है, कि स्वत्व एवं आध्पित्य धारी है। ब-यह कि प्रतिवादीगण का उक्त वर्णित भाग पर किसी प्रकार का स्वत्व या अधिकार नहीं है. स. यह कि वादी उक्त आधे भाग पर नगर पालीका में माणकलाल मोतीलाल के स्थान घर अपना नाम दर्ज करवाने तथा नामांतरण कराने की हकदार है। इसमें प्रतिवादीगण को कोई आपत्ति नहीं होगी। दशपक्षकार वाद व्यय स्वयं वहन करेंगे।"

On the basis of aforesaid judgment and decree, the name of the plaintiff had been mutated in the record of Municipal Corporation, Alirajpur. This aforesaid fact came to the knowledge of Collector of Stamp that the respondent/plaintiff has acquired the title by way of collusive and compromise decree and got the her name mutated in the record, therefore, the decree comes under the category of Conveyance under Section 2(10) of the Stamp Act.

The Collector of Stamp registered against the respondent. After issuance of notice, the Collector Stamp, vide order dated 13.08.2002 has assessed the market value of the property in question 3,60,000/-, the stamp duty of Rs.35,500/- penalty of Rs.3,030/- and directed the respondent to pay Rs.38,850/-.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the respondent preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue. Vide order dated 15.12.2006, learned Board of Revenue has set aside the order dated 13.08.2002 on the ground that decree passed by the Civil Court does not come under the definition of "conveyance" under Section 2(10) of the Stamp Act. Hence, the present petition before this Court.

Heard Shri Sharma, the learned Govt. Advocate for the State.

In support of the contention, learned counsel for the petitioner/State has placed reliance over the judgment passed by the apex Court in the case of The Ruby Sales and Services (P) Limited and another vs. State of Maharashtra and Others JT 1993 (6) SC 217 in which it has been held that in the consent decree, there can be no manner of doubt that the parties, to the transaction of the suit, agreed with that the consent decree with the defendant in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property hence the decree is liable to be stamped as conveyance.

In the present case, the respondent/plaintiff filed a civil Suit for declaration of title by way of adverse possession. The defendants appeared and agreed the title of the plaintiff and decree has been passed that the plaintiff is entitled to get mutated her name in the record of Municipal Corporation and in which the defendants have no right and title. The plaintiff admitting the ownership of the defendants filed the suit claiming title of property and by way of an agreement between them, the defendants have relinquished their right and conferred the title of the plaintiff, therefore, the consent decree is nothing, but transfer of immovable property in favour of the plaintiff and which comes under the definition of "conveyance". The Collector of Stamp has rightly treated it as conveyance under Section 2(10) of the Stamp Act, but Board of Revenue without assigning any reason has set aside the order, therefore, the petition is allowed and the order dated 15.12.2006 passed by the Board of Revenue is hereby set aside.

Cc as per rules.