AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L.N. Mittal, J.—Judgment debtor (JD) Union Territory of Chandigarh (U.T. Chandigarh) has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India impugning order dated 30.7.2013 passed by the executing court thereby dismissing with costs of Rs. 5000/- objections
Annexure P/2 filed by JD-petitioner in execution petition which has been instituted by respondents/decree holders against the petitioner for
execution of judgment and decree dated 28.5.2011 Annexure P/1. Concluding paragraph No. 29 of the judgment Annexure P/1 is reproduced
hereunder:--
In view of discussion on above issues, it is held that the plaintiff No. 1 Mrs. Kuldeep Kaur is owner of house No. 1141, Sector 15-B,
Chandigarh and she is entitled to get the same mutated in her name and the defendant is directed to transfer the house in the name of plaintiff No.
Suit of plaintiffs is accordingly decreed qua the present defendant without any orders as to costs. Decree sheet be drawn. File be consigned to
the record room after due compliance.
JD-petitioner in its objections alleged that the decree based on family settlement created right, title and interest in the immoveable property in
favour of respondent No. 1 for the first time and therefore, respondent No. 1 is liable to pay stamp duty and registration fee for registration of the
decree before the same can be executed. It was pointed out that plea regarding payment of stamp duty and registration was not raised in the suit
because occasion for the same arose only after the suit was decreed. Reliance has been placed on judgments in A.C. Lakshmipathy and another
Vs. A.M. Chakrapani Reddiar and five others, ; Bhoop Singh Vs. Ram Singh Major and others, and CWP No. 22289 of 2010 titled Krishan Lal
Vaid versus The Union Territory of Chandigarh, decided on 23.1.2012.
I have carefully considered the matter. The aforesaid contentions cannot be accepted. If the JD/petitioner had any objection regarding stamp
duty and registration, the same should have been raised by it in the suit. It cannot be said that occasion for raising the said objection arose only
after the suit was decreed. The respondents in their suit specifically set up the family settlement under which their predecessor became exclusive
owner of the suit property by virtue of family settlement with his real brother. Both the brothers were owners of the suit property and by virtue of
family settlement, the respondents'' predecessor became exclusive owner thereof. Consequently, it cannot be said that the petitioner could not have
raised objection regarding stamp duty and registration in the written statement filed in the suit.
Even otherwise, claim based on family settlement does not require compulsory registration. Concept of family settlement is well recognized in
our society. It cannot be said that by family settlement, rights are created or transferred for the first time. Decree based on family settlement does
not require compulsory registration.
Judgments cited by counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the instant case. Judgments in the cases of A.C. Lakshmipathy and another
(supra) and Bhoop Singh (supra) have no applicability to the instant case. Judgment in the case of Krishan Lal Vaid (supra) is also not applicable
because in that case, the suit which was decreed on the basis of settlement was between private parties and UT, Chandigarh was not party to the
said suit. The decree holder applied for transfer of the property. Thereupon, Union Territory demanded stamp duty charges which was challenged
by filing writ petition. In these circumstances, it was held that the stamp duty is payable. However, in that case, Union Territory was not party to
the decree which was sought to be implemented and consequently it had no occasion at any earlier stage to raise objection of stamp duty prior to
the time when the decree was sought to be implemented by moving the Estate Officer. So judgment in the case of Krishan Lal Vaid (supra) also
has no applicability because in the instant case, petitioner UT Chandigarh itself was party to the decree sought to be executed. Consequently,
objection regarding stamp duty and registration should have been taken in the written statement and cannot now be taken by the JD-petitioner in
execution proceedings. Resultantly, objections filed by the petitioner have been rightly dismissed by the executing court. There is no perversity,
illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned order of the executing court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of
superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is not only meritless but is completely frivolous and deserves to
be dismissed with exemplary costs. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with
the Registry of this Court. If the cost amount is not deposited within 3 months from today, the case shall be listed for this purpose.