ORDER
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.
1. Revision petitioner filed the suit seeking a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession over the plaint schedule property inter alia contending that in pursuance of the settlement reached and as per the award passed by the Lok Adalat he is entitled to continue in possession thereof. During the course of evidence, when he sought to mark a copy of the award passed by the Lok Adalat, counsel for the 1st respondent took an objection for marking that award on the ground that it requires to be stamped and registered. The trial Court upheld the contention that it requires stamp duty as conveyance, but does not require registration and directed the revision petitioner to pay stamp duty and penalty thereon as a condition precedent to receive it in evidence. Hence this revision.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for both sides and the Special Government Pleader on behalf of the Advocate General, because I wanted to know the stand of the Government in view of the language employed in Section 2(10) of the Stamp Act and since the trial Court passed the order keeping in view Section 2(10) of the Stamp Act as amended by the State of A.P. and Article 20 of Schedule I-A of the State of A.P.
3. O.S. No. 12 of 1989 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur, was filed by Atcham Venkateswararao against the revision petitioner and others for declaration of his title to and possession and for profits on the properties mentioned in the schedule appended to that plaint, of which the property covered by the present suit is one. After the said case was referred to Lok Adalat as per the compromise between the parties, the Lok Adalat passed an award whereunder 2nd defendant in that suit, who is the revision petitioner herein, who was in possession and enjoyment of the properties mentioned in the B schedule of that suit i.e. property covered by this suit, was held to be entitled to continue to be in possession and enjoyment thereof with absolute rights. Alleging that even after the said award respondents are interfering with his possession over the suit property, revision petitioner filed the suit for perpetual injunction.
4. Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 lays down that an award of the Lok Adalat would be deemed to be a decree of a civil Court.
5. Section 2(10) of the Stamp Act after its amendment by virtue of A.P. Act 8 of 1998 reads
“Conveyance” includes a conveyance on sale, every instrument and every decree or final order of any Civil Court, by which property, whether movable or immovable, or any estate or interest in any property is transferred to, or vested in or declared to be of any other person, inter vivos, and which is not otherwise specifically provided for by Schedule-l or Schedule-l-A, as the case may be.
6. Since a plain reading of the said definition shows that decree of the Court transferring interest in immovable property also would be conveyance, amenable to stamp duty as per Article 20 of Schedule 1 -A, I issued notice to the learned Advocate General for knowing the stand of the State Government on this aspect. Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar, Special Government Pleader, stated that the reasons that prompted the government to amend Section 2(10) are mentioned in the Statement of Objects and Reasons to the A.P. Act 8 of 1998. The relevant portion thereof reads
(i) It has been observed that some of the parties are obtaining decrees from Civil Courts declaring them as owners along with a direction for mutation in the ownership records and thereby evading payment of stamp duty on transfer of immovable property. Hence it is felt necessary to amend Section 2(10) to bring such Court decrees also within the scope of the definition of conveyance under Clause 2(10) of the Bill. It is also necessary to incorporate suitable provisions so as to arrest leakage of stamp duty in the guise of release of co-ownership in the property or dissolutions of partnerships by means of explanations under the definition of conveyance on the lines of amendments carried out by the States of West Bengal and Gujarat.
7. Now the question is whether the Statement of Objects and reasons can be used in interpreting the sentence ‘every decree or final order of a Civil Court, by which property, whether movable or immovable, or any estate or interest in any property is transferred to, or vested in or declared to be of any other person, intervivos’ in restricting it only to the directions of civil Courts for mutation in ownership records and not in respect of other decrees where they are obtained in normal course, with regard to immovable property. In Principles of Statutory Interpretation (9th edition 2004) by G.P. Singh, it is observed
In other case (CIT, MP. v. Sodra Devi ), Bhagwati, J., while dealing with Section 16(3) of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922, as introduced by the amending Act IV of 1937, and in construing the words ‘any individual’ and ‘such individual’ occurring therein, restricted their meaning to ‘males’ on a consideration that the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill of the amending Act made it clear that the evil which was sought to be remedied was the one resulting from the widespread practice of husbands entering into nominal partnerships with their wives and fathers admitting their minor children to the benefits of the partnerships of which they were members and that the only intention of the Legislature was to include the income derived by the wife or minor child, in the computation of the total income derived by the wife or a minor child, in the computation of the total income of the male assessee, the husband or the father, as the case may be. The Statement of Objects and Reasons was used for holding that the Orissa Forest Produce (Control of Trade) Act, 1981 did not apply to forest produce grown in Government forests and that the Act was restricted in its application to forest produce grown on private land (Utkal Contractors send Joinery Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Orissa )
In view thereof, I am of the considered opinion that, Statement of Objects and Reasons can be taken into consideration for construing Section 2(10) of the Stamp Act, as amended by A.P. Act 8 of 1998. Since the intention of the Legislature was to arrest leakage of stamp duty on transfer of immovable properties by parties obtaining decrees from civil courts with a direction to mutation in ownership records, and since the object is not to bring in its fold all decrees or final orders of civil Court transferring any interest in the property in the normal course, I am of the considered opinion that the order of the trial Court directing payment of stamp duty on an award passed by the Lok Adalat, which apparently took place in normal course of event but not as a devise to evade stamp duty, is not sustainable and hence is set aside.
8. Before parting with the case, I feel it would be appropriate for the government to make suitable amendment to Section 2(10) of the Stamp Act to a void the confusion created by the amendment made to it by Act 8 of 1998.
9. In the result, the revision is allowed and the order under revision is set aside holding that the award which is sought to be marked as an exhibit does not require any stamp duty and penalty. No costs.