Summary of the Judgment in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Anr.

-

 





Summary of the Judgment in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Anr.

Background

This Supreme Court judgment addresses the legality and validity of transactions involving the sale of immovable property through the execution of Sale Agreement/General Power of Attorney/Will (SA/GPA/WILL) transfers. These transactions have been employed to circumvent legal requirements, such as the payment of stamp duty, registration charges, and to facilitate the investment of unaccounted money (black money).

Key Points and Legal Provisions

  1. Ill-Effects of SA/GPA/WILL Transactions:

    • Generate black money.
    • Enable land mafia activities and criminalization of civil disputes.
    • Encourage tax evasion and corruption.

  2. Legal Definitions:

    • Section 5, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TP Act): Defines transfer of property.
    • Section 54, TP Act: Defines sale and mandates that transfer of ownership in immovable property worth more than one hundred rupees can only be done through a registered instrument.
    • Section 53A, TP Act: Provides for the doctrine of part performance, protecting possession under certain conditions but not conferring ownership.

  3. Relevant Provisions from Other Laws:

    • Indian Stamp Act, 1899: Obliges parties to set forth facts affecting duty chargeability; prescribes stamp duty on conveyances.
    • Registration Act, 1908: Mandates the registration of documents that affect immovable property, ensuring public notice and preventing fraud.

  4. Scope of Agreements and Instruments:

    • Agreement of Sale: Does not by itself create any interest in the property (Sections 54 and 55, TP Act).
    • Power of Attorney: Acts as an agency, enabling the attorney to act on behalf of the principal but does not transfer ownership.
    • Will: A testamentary document effective posthumously, does not transfer inter vivos.

  5. Court's Conclusion:

    • SA/GPA/WILL Transactions: Do not convey title or interest in immovable property and cannot be treated as concluded transfers or conveyances.
    • Need for Registered Conveyance Deeds: Legal transfer of immovable property requires a registered deed of conveyance.
    • Existing SA/GPA/WILL Transactions: Parties can regularize these transactions by obtaining registered conveyance deeds. The court's decision does not affect genuine transactions involving family members or development agreements.

  6. Implementation:

    • The court reiterated that property transfer through SA/GPA/WILL is not valid.
    • Urged for remedial steps to curb such transactions and highlighted the reduction of stamp duty as a measure taken by Haryana.

Implications

This judgment emphasizes the importance of legal compliance in property transactions, advocating for transparency and discouraging practices that foster black money and legal disputes. It clarifies that only registered deeds of conveyance can validly transfer ownership of immovable property.

This summary highlights the court's stance on discouraging SA/GPA/WILL transactions due to their adverse effects and legal non-compliance, urging parties to adhere to proper registration procedures for property transfers.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By LRs & Ors on 25 March, 2008 Judgment Detailed Summary

-
Image
Case Overview: Court: Supreme Court of India Bench: R. V. Raveendran, P. Sathasivam Appeal No.: Civil Appeal No. 6191 of 2001 Parties: Petitioner: Anathula Sudhakar (Defendant in the original suit) Respondent: P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) represented by legal representatives Background: The suit was originally filed by Puli Chandra Reddy and Puli Buchi Reddy, who claimed ownership of two sites (110 sq. yards and 187 sq. yards) in Matwada, Warangal town. They alleged that the defendant interfered with their possession when they began construction on the sites in 1978, leading them to file a suit for a permanent injunction. The defendant, Anathula Sudhakar, claimed that he had purchased the entire suit property (300 sq. yards) from K.V. Damodar Rao (brother of the plaintiffs' vendor, Rukminibai) under a registered sale deed in 1977 and that the property was mutated in his name in municipal records. Trial Court and Lower Courts: Trial Court: The suit was decreed in favor of...
Read more

Before Deciding on Interim, Ensure that there is atleast a preliminary satisfaction regarding the Suit Maintainbility: HSC

-
Image
Summary of Judgment: Asma Lateef & Anr. vs. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors. Citation: 2024 INSC 36 Civil Appeal No. 9695 of 2013 Court: Supreme Court of India Judges: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Aravind Kumar Legal Issues: Whether the order dated 5th August 1991, decreeing the suit against Samiullah under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC, suffered from a jurisdictional error so grave that the decree drawn up subsequently is incapable of execution. Whether the objections under Section 47 of the CPC by the subsequent purchasers were maintainable. Background: The appellants claimed that their great-grandmother orally gifted them a certain property on 16th August 1988, which was later recorded in a memorandum before the tehsildar. The appellants filed a suit for a permanent injunction against Asad Ullah Kazmi (defendant no. 1), his son Samiullah (defendant no. 2), and a caretaker (defendant no. 3), restraining them from interfering with their possession of...
Read more