P L D 2009 Lahore 440 (PLP)
ALLAH DITTA BHATTI — Petitioner Versus AMJAD SATED and others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2009 Lahore 440 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ALLAH DITTA BHATTI — Petitioner Versus AMJAD SATED and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Stamp Act (II of 1899) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2009 Lahore 440 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Stamp Act (II of 1899) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2009 Lahore 440 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2009 Lahore 440 (PLP) (ALLAH DITTA BHATTI — Petitioner Versus AMJAD SATED and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Younas Bhatti for Petitioner.
- Shahid Hussain Kazmi, A.A.-G. for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 27 A
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell
Payment of additional stamp duty
Pending suit, defendant died and his legal representatives entered into compromise with the plaintiff and suit was decreed as prayed for
Pursuant to the said decree, sale-deed was executed by said legal representatives of deceased defendant
Consideration was mentioned as Rs.40,00,000 instead of Rs.35,00,000 and stamp duty of Rs.80,000 was paid Grievance of the plaintiff in his constitutional petition was that legal representatives of the deceased defendants were not registering sale-deed and were insisting that the plaintiff should pay stamp duty according to the current valuation list issued under S.27-A of the Stamp Act, 1899
Sub-Registrar was not competent to ignore the decree of the court or to direct parties to pay stamp duty on self-inflated rates and valuation tables issued by the Collectors, had no legal basis or sanctity
Defendants had no lawful authority to call upon the plaintiff to pay additional stamp duty
Defendants were bound by the terms of the decree and the sale-deed which had been executed in accordance with the terms thereof and otherwise was hearing proper stamp duty, would be registered by them, of course, on payment of other requisite charges like registration fee etc.
Judgment & Decree
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.
On 29-6-2000 the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell against one Malik Muhammad Riaz. According to the contents of the plaint, he agreed to transfer the suit property to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.35,00,
000. The suit remained pending. It appears that the said Malik Muhammad Riaz died and his LRs were brought on record. The said LRs entered into a compromise with the petitioner which was recorded on 6-5-2004 and the suit was decreed as prayed for. Pursuant to the said decree, a sale-deed was executed by the said LRs of the said Malik Muhammad Riaz deceased and the same was presented for registration vide receipt dated 3-11-2004. The consideration was mentioned as Rs.40,00,000 and a stamp duty of Rs.80,000 was paid.
2. The grievance being made out in this writ petition filed in this Court on 4-1-2005 is that the respondents are not registering the said document and are insisting that the petitioner should pay stamp duty according to the current valuation list issued under section 27-A of the Stamp Act, 1899.
3. The writ petition was admitted to hearing on 11-1-2005.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends with reference to the cases of Province of Punjab, through Secretary Revenue, Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore etc. v. Messrs. Marhaba Dawakhana etc. (1999 CLC 450 DB, Major (Rtd.) Muhammad Suleman Khan v. D.G./ Registrar, Lahore District (2002 CLC 226) and Muhammad Aslam v. Sub-Registrar and others (1995 CLC 674) that the sale-deed has been executed pursuant to the decree for specific performance, the respondents cannot insist upon payment of stamp duty in terms of section 27-A of the Stamp Act, 1899. Learned A.A-G. with reference to the comments filed by the respondents is of the opinion that the stamp duty is payable in accordance with the current valuation list.
5. I have gone through the file of this case. The facts have been stated above and not denied by the respondents. The said judgments cited by the learned counsel are squarely attracted. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in the said case of Province of Punjab v. Messrs. Marimba Dawakhana that the Sub-Registrar was not competent to ignore the decree of the Court or to direct parties to pay stamp duty on self inflated rates. It was also observed that the valuation tables issued by the Collectors have no legal basis or sanctity. This judgment, in fact, confirms the earlier view of this Court in the said case of Muhammad Aslam v. Sub-Registrar while these judgments were followed in the said case of Major (Rtd.) Muhammad Suelman Khan. In view of the law clearly laid down in the said judgments, the respondents have no lawful authority to call upon the petitioner to pay additional stamp duty. The respondents are bound by the terms of the decree and the sale-deed which has been executed in accordance with the terms thereof and otherwise bears proper stamp duty shall be registered by them, of course, on payment of other requisite charges like registration fee. No orders as to costs. H.B.T./A-101/L Order accordingly.