http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PRAMOD KUMAR GUPTA

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/12/1990

BENCH: SHARMA, L.M. (J) BENCH: SHARMA, L.M. (J) SAHAI, R.M. (J)

CITATION:  1991 AIR  401            1990 SCR  Supl. (3) 547  JT 1990 (4)   787        1990 SCALE  (2)1272

ACT:     Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957: Section 147--Levy of  duty on transfer of immovable  property--Expression  ’i- nstrument  of  sale of immovable  property’--Scope  of--Word ’instrument’--Whether has the same connotation as under  the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.     Code   of  Civil  Procedure,  1908:  Order  XXI,   Rules 92-94--Auction  sale--Certificate  of sale issued  by  Civil Court--Whether  instrument  of sale--Whether  chargeable  to duty  under  section 147 of the Municipal  Corporation  Act, 1957 --Object of the sale certificate explained.     Indian  Stamp  Act,  1899: Section  2  Clause  (10)  and (14)’Conveyance’ and ’instrument’--Meaning of.

HEADNOTE:     The respondent purchased the property in question at  an auction  sale  held in execution of a decree  of  the  Civil Court.  The sale was confirmed under Order XXI, Rule  92  of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the High Court direct- ed  issuing  of  a sale certificate under Rule  94.  On  the question of payment of duty the respondent contended that no duty  was  chargeable  under section 147  of  the  Municipal Corporation  Act,  1957. A single judge of  the  High  Court accepted  his plea and directed payment of only  stamp  duty (under  the  Stamp Act, 1899) without  any  surcharge  under section 147 of the 1957 Act for issuance of the sale certif- icate.  On appeal the judgment of the single judge was  con- firmed  by  a Division Bench of the High Court.  Hence  this appeal by Municipal Corporation. Dismissing the appeal, this Court,     HELD: 1. The expression ’instrument of sale of immovable property’  under  section 147 of the  Municipal  Corporation Act, 1957 means a document effecting transfer. The title  to the property in question has to be conveyed under the  docu- ment.  The document has to be a vehicle for the transfer  of the right, title and interest, A document merely stating  as a  fact  that  transfer has already taken  place  cannot  be included within this expression. A paper which is  recording a fact or is 548 attempting  to  furnish  evidence of  an  already  concluded transaction  under which title has already passed cannot  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

treated to be such an instrument. [550B-D]     2.  The  provisions of Order XXI of the  Code  of  Civil Procedure, 1908 make it clear that the title to the property put on auction sale passes by force of law when the sale  is held and the transfer becomes final when an order under Rule 92  confirming it is made. By the certificate  issued  under Rule  94, the Court is formally declaring the effect of  the same and is not extinguishing or creating title. The  object of issuance of such a Certificate is to avoid any controver- sy with respect to the identity of the property sold, and of the  purchaser  thereof as also of the date  when  the  sale becomes absolute. The use of past tense in the rule  stating that  the  sale "became" absolute, is consistent  with  this interpretation.  The Certificate of sale, therefore,  cannot be  termed  to  be an instrument of sale so  as  to  attract section 147 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. [550E-H; 551A-D]

JUDGMENT: