Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Moot Proposition Case of The Plaintiff / Appellant
Moot Proposition Case of The Plaintiff / Appellant
The plaintiff also claimed that the purchaser may be liable to tax on the
differential value, u/s. 56(2) (vii) (b) (ii) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
Agreement of sale, General Power of Attorney and Will were duly executed
and a consideration of Rs.45.00 lacs was paid and possession was transferred u/s. 53-
A. Possession is with the Company. The agreement is unregistered and unilateral.
The plaintiff is not the signatory and hence claim is unsustainable in law. Balance of
Rs.5.00 lacs was not received by the stipulated date 02.01.2014, though tendered later.
The property was sold to Mr. Yadav and he was advised to take possession from the
plaintiff. Suit is bad. The facts as narrated by the plaintiff are disputed and unproved.
The plaintiff is not entitled to any relief and the suit deserves to be summarily
dismissed with costs and damages.
The respondent also pleaded that he enquired about the stamp duty and
registration charges and was informed by the Registering Authority that fair market
value on the date of registration and not the date of Sale Agreement, would be
2
payable. Thus, the stamp duty would be payable on Rs. 1.50 Crore, which should be
borne by the plaintiff. The seller further claimed that on account of Section 50C of the
Income-Tax Act, 1961, the seller would be required to pay capital gain tax on Rs. 1.50
Crore against real sale consideration of Rs. 50 Lacs, which would be additional
liability for no fault on his part.
Shri Dharamvir Yadav claims that earlier General Power of Attorney is having
been cancelled and General Power of Attorney in his favour being registered subsists.
He has authority and competence to sell and not Ramnath. Rs. 50 lacs have been paid
to Ramnath, owners apart from Rs. 40 lacs to the plaintiff.
Issues Framed:
1. Whether the Agreement of Sale, General Power of Attorney and the Will
executed in favour of the plaintiff is valid?
2. Whether when a sum of Rs.45 lacs having been paid out of Rs.50.00 lacs and
possession given u/s.53A of the Transfer of Property Act, Ramanath and his family
members had no power, competence and authority to execute second General Power
of Attorney in favour of Mr. Yadav and cancel the earlier GPA in favour of the
plaintiff, is valid?
3. Whether the plaintiff was ready, willing and prepared and tendered Rs.5.00
lacs after 02.01.2014 and requested Ramanath and his family members to execute sale
deed and to get it registered. What was the effect of non-payment of balance amount
on 02.01.2014?
4. Whether the Stamp Duty Registering Authority was right in demanding stamp
duty on the fair market value of Rs. 1 Crore and 50 lacs as on 01.08.2014 and not at
recorded value / fair market value on 01.08.2013 i.e. Rs. 50 lacs? If the stamp duty
would be payable on additional 1 crore, who would bear such amount?
The appellant – Purchaser plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as the sale Agreement is
not registered: GPA has been cancelled: the appellant failed to pay the balance of
Rs.5 lacs by 02.01.2014: is liable to return possession on payment of Rs.45 lacs by the
respondent-owner . The respondent owner is directed to pay within 15 days of this
order and the appellant is directed to handover vacant possession simultaneously. As
the sale is not fructified question of income tax would not arise and so the stamp duty.
Both issues are academic.
Relevant Sections
4. Section 2(12), 3, 17, 27, 47A of Stamp Act (2 of 1899) & Rajasthan Stamp
Law (Adaptation) Act