Skip to content


T. Sundaramoorthy Vs. P. Kanakaraj and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R.P. No. 2233 of 1979
Judge
Reported inAIR1982Mad130
ActsPondicherry Municipalities Act, 1973 - Sections 158
AppellantT. Sundaramoorthy
RespondentP. Kanakaraj and anr.
Appellant AdvocateV. Sridevan, ;G. Masilamani and ;C. Jayaraj, Advs. and ;Govt. Pleader
Respondent AdvocateR. Gandhi, ;M. Kamalanathan and ;K.R.K. Vasuki, Advs.
Cases ReferredMt. Ram Sri v. Jai Lal
Excerpt:
.....liable to pay surcharge ; the petitioner/court auction purchaser was directed to pay duty on the sale certificate issued to him. it was concluded that he was not liable to pay surcharge as the sale is not intervolve between the parties but one affected under operation of law. the trial court held that the sale certificate conveys title and surcharge is payable by the court auction-purchaser. against that order a civil revision petition was filed in the high court.; the questions that arose for consideration were whether the sale certificate issued by the court is an instrument of sale of immovable property as specified in the eighth schedule to the pondichery municipalities act and whether the auction purchaser is liable to pay surcharge.; held, the sale certificate does not vest title..........municipality. the petitioner is the court auction purchaser and was directed to pay duty on the sale certificate issued to him. it was contended that he is not liable to pay surcharge as the sale is not inter vivos between the parties but one effected under operation of law. the court below held that the sale certificate conveys title and surcharge is payable by the court auction purchaser. against the order of the lower court. the present civil revision petition has been filed.2. the learned counsel for the civil revision petitioner contended that surcharge is not leviable on every instrument of transfer of immovable property, but only on those instruments of transfer of immoveable property described in the viiith schedule and the sale certificate issued by the court in favour of the.....
Judgment:
1. Under S. 158 of the Pondicherry Municipalities Act 1973 (Act 9 of 1973). duty in the form of surcharge on transfer of property shall be levied on every instrument of the description specified in, Schedule VIII relating to immoveable property and situated within the limits of Pondicherry Municipality. The petitioner is the court auction purchaser and was directed to pay duty on the sale certificate issued to him. It was contended that he is not liable to pay surcharge as the sale is not inter vivos between the parties but one effected under operation of law. The court below held that the sale certificate conveys title and surcharge is payable by the court auction purchaser. Against the order of the lower court. the present civil revision petition has been filed.

2. The learned counsel for the civil revision petitioner contended that surcharge is not leviable on every instrument of transfer of immovable property, but only on those instruments of transfer of immoveable property described in the VIIIth schedule and the sale certificate issued by the court in favour of the petitioner is not an instrument of sale of immoveable property specified in the VIIIth schedule and hence there is, no liability to pay surcharge on the sale certificate issued in favour of the petitioner.

3. The next contention of the learned counsel is that duty in the form of surcharge is leviable on the duty imposed by the Stamp Act 1899, and not at a rate as fixed by the Government on the amount specified in the VIIIth schedule.

4. The learned Government Pleader relying on a decision of the Privy Council reported in Ramabhadra Naidu v. Kadirivasami Naicker, AIR 1922 PC 252, contended that the sale certificates are documents of title evidencing transfer of immoveable property in favour of the petitioner and duty in the form of surcharge is leviable under S. 158 of the Pondicherry Municipalities Act, 1973. In the decision reported in M. C. T. M. Chidambaram Chettiar v. Rangaswami Thevar, AIR 1938 Mad 232, this court has held that the court sale certificate is only a formal document confirming what was purchased in the court auction and the court auction purchaser can base his title to the Property only by virtue of his purchase at the court auction. In the decision reported in Makhanlal Kela v. Baldeo Prasad. AIR 1938 All 471 it was pointed out that the sale certificate is only a statutory evidence of transfer in place of the mode of transfer by a registered sale deed, and title will vest in favour of the court auction Purchaser from the date of sale and not from the date when the sale certificate was issued in his favour. In the decision reported in Mt. Ram Sri v. Jai Lal, AIR 1947 All 171, it was held that the vesting of title in the auction purchaser is not made dependent on the issue of sale certificate and it is the confirmation of sale that passes title to the auction purchaser.

5. The legal position emerging from the decisions cited above can be stated as under: The sale certificate does not vest title in the auction purchaser. It is the confirmation of sale that Passes title to the auction purchaser and he becomes the owner of the property from the date of sale and not from the date when the sale certificate is issued. The vesting of title is not made dependent on the issue of sale certificate. The court sale certificate is only a formal document confirming what was purchased by him in court auction and the court auction purchaser can base his title to the suit property only by virtue of his purchase in the court auction. It, therefore, follows that the sale certificate issued by court does not convey or vest title to the auction purchaser. As it is only a formal document evidencing transfer of immoveable property which has already taken place when the property was sold in court auction, it is not an instrument of transfer of immoveable property as specified in the VIIIth Schedule to the Pondicherry Municipalities Act. In this view, there is no liability for the petitioner to pay surcharge under S. 158 of the said Act. As the petitioner succeeds on the first contention. it is unnecessary to go into the correctness of the second contention regarding the quantum of surcharge payable by the petitioner.

6. In the result the order of the lower court is set aside and the civil revision petition is allowed with costs.

7. Petition allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //