Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6588 OF 2015
Kerala Land Reforms & Development
Co-operative Society Limited …Appellant
Versus
The District Registrar (General) & Another …Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6830 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6831-6832 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6833 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6834-6836 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6837-6838 OF 2022
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. As common questions of law and facts arise in this group of
appeals, all these appeals are decided and disposed of together by this
common judgment and order.
1
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment(s)
and order(s) passed by the Full Bench of the High Court of Kerala at
Ernakulam, by which the Full Bench of the High Court has held that,
i) the benefit of remission of stamp duty is available only in
respect of instruments executed by or on behalf of a society or by
an officer or member thereof and instrument so executed should be
relating to the business of the society; and
ii) the benefit of remission can be claimed by the society only if,
but for such remission, the society, an officer, or the member, as the
case may be, would have been liable to pay such stamp duty, the
Kerala Land Reforms & Development Cooperative Society Limited,
Federal House Construction Cooperative Society Limited & Another,
N.B.Krishna Kurup and Others, Aluva Town Cooperative Housing
Society and the Central Excise & Custom Officers Housing Co-
operative Society Limited have preferred the present appeals.
3. The particulars of each appeal(s) are as under:
| ITEM<br>NO. | CASE<br>NUMBER | CAUSE TITLE | APPELLANT(S) | TRANSACTION<br>INVOLVED |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 101 | C.A. No.<br>6588/201<br>5 | KERALA LAND<br>REFORMS &<br>DEVELOPMENT<br>COOPERATIVE<br>SOCIETY LTD.<br>VERSUS<br>DISTRICT<br>REGISTRAR | Co-operative<br>Society | Sale deed<br>executed by the ‘A’<br>Class Members of<br>the Society in<br>favour of the<br>Society. |
2
| (GENERAL) AND<br>ANR | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 101.1 | C.A. No.<br>6830/202<br>2 | KERALA LAND<br>REFORMS<br>VERSUS<br>THE DISTRICT<br>REGISTRAR<br>(GENERAL) AND<br>ANR. | Co-operative<br>Society | Sale deed<br>executed by the ‘A’<br>Class Members of<br>the Society in<br>favour of the<br>Society |
| 101.2 | C.A. No.<br>6831-<br>6832/202<br>2 | FEDERAL HOUSE<br>CONSTRUCTION<br>CO-OP SOCIETY<br>LTD & ANR<br>VERSUS<br>STATE OF KERALA | Appellant 1. –<br>Co-operative<br>Society<br>Appellant 2. –<br>Member of the<br>Co-op Society | Sale deed<br>executed by the<br>Society in favour<br>of the member<br>(Appellant No. 2)<br>of the Society<br>(Appellant No. 1). |
| 101.3 | C.A. No.<br>6833/202<br>2 | N.B. KRISHNA<br>KURUP AND ORS<br>VERSUS<br>DISTRICT<br>REGISTRAR<br>(GENERAL)<br>KALPETTA AND<br>ORS | Members of the<br>Co-operative<br>Society<br>(Including the<br>Impleaders) | Sale deeds<br>executed by the<br>Society in favour<br>of the members of<br>the Society. |
| 101.4 | C.A. No.<br>6834-<br>6836/202<br>2 | ALUVA TOWN<br>COOPERATIVE<br>HOUSING SOCIETY<br>VERSUS<br>THE SUB<br>REGISTRAR<br>ERNAKULAM AND<br>ORS | Co-operative<br>Society | Sale deeds<br>executed by the<br>Society in favour<br>of the members of<br>the Society |
| 101.5 | C.A. No.<br>6837-<br>6838/202<br>2 | THE CENTRAL<br>EXCISE AND<br>CUSTOMS<br>OFFICERS<br>HOUSING CO-<br>OPERATIVE<br>SOCIETY LTD<br>VERSUS<br>THE STATE OF<br>KERALA AND ORS | Co-operative<br>Society | Sale deeds<br>executed by the<br>Society in favour<br>of the members of<br>the Society. |
4. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as under:
3
Section 35 of the Travancore-cochin Co-operative Societies Act,
1951 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Travancore Act, 1951’) provided that
the Government, by notification in the gazette, may in the case of any
society or class of societies, remit the stamp duty with which, under any
law for the time being in force, instruments executed in favour of or by or
on behalf of a society or by an officer or member and relating to the
business of such society or any class of such instruments or awards of
the Registrar or Arbitrators under the Act are respectively chargeable.
A similar provision was made under the Madras Co-operative
Societies Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Madras Act, 1932’) as
per section 30(2) of the said Act.
4.1 In exercise of the powers conferred under the Travancore Act,
1951 and Madras Act, 1932, the Government of Kerala by SRO No.
75/1960 dated 08.10.1960, directed that in respect of a co-operative
society registered in the State, the whole stamp duty with which under
the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 instruments executed by or on behalf of any
registered co-operative society or instruments executed by officer of
such society or member in his own capacity or/and in the capacity of a
Guardian of minor and relating to the business thereof and decisions,
award or orders of the Registrar or the Arbitrators under the said Co-
operative Societies Act, there shall be remission of stamp duty. Clause
4
1(a) of SRP No. 75/60, which is relevant for determination of the issue in
question, reads as under:
“1. The stamp duty, registration fees and fees for Encumbrance
Certificate payable under the Stamp Act and the Registration Act in force
in the State shall be remitted to the Co-operative Societies, in the following
cases to the extent indicated in each case.
(a) The whole stamp duty with which under the Kerala Stamp Act,
1959 (Act 17 of 1959) instruments executed by or on behalf of any
registered Co-operative Society or instruments executed by “any officer
of such Society or member in his own capacity or/and in the capacity of
a guardian of minor” and relating to the business thereof and decisions,
awards or orders of the Registrar or the arbitrators under the said Co-
operative Societies Act.”
4.2 By the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Kerala Act, 1969’), which came into force on
15.05.1969, the Travancore Act, 1951 and the Madras Act, 1932 came to
be repealed. Section 110 of the Kerala Act, 1969 deals with Repeal and
Savings, which reads as under:
“ 110. Repeal and Savings – The Madras Co-operative Societies Act,
1932 (VI of 1932), as in force in the Malabar District referred to in sub-
section (2) of S.5 of the State Reorganization Act, 1956 (Central Act 37 of
1956) and the Travancore-Cochin Co-operative Societies Act, 1951 (X of
1952) are repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding the repeal of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act,
1932 and the Travancore-Cochin Co-operative Societies Act, 1951 and
without prejudice to the provisions of Ss.4 and 23 of the Interpretation and
General Clauses Act, 1125 (VII of 1125).
(i) all appointments, rules and orders made, notifications and notices
issued, and suits and other proceedings instituted, under any of the Acts
hereby repealed shall, so far as may be, be deemed to have been
respectively made, issued and instituted under this Act;
(ii) any society existing in the state on the date of commencement of this
Act which has been registered or deemed to be registered under any of
5
the aforesaid repealed Acts shall be deemed to be registered under the
Act, and the bye-laws of such society shall, so far as they are not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, continue in force until altered or
rescinded.”
4.3 Section 40 of the Kerala Act, 1969 provides for remission of stamp
duty, which reads as under:
“40. Exemption from certain taxes, fees and duties –
(1) The Government may, be notification in the Gazette, remit in respect of
any class of societies-
(a) the stamp duty chargeable under the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (17 of
1959), in respect of any instrument executed by or on behalf of a society
or by an officer or member thereof and relating to the business of such
society, or any class of such instruments, or in respect of any award or
order made under the Act, in cases where, but for such remission the
society, officer or member, as the case may be, would be liable to pay
such stamp duty.”
4.4 The respective appellants herein were denied the benefit of
remission of stamp duty considering Section 40 of the Kerala Act, 1969,
more particularly the last part of the Section which provides that
remission is available only in cases where, but for such remission, the
society, officer or member, as the case may be, would be liable to pay
such stamp duty. It was the case on behalf of the appellants that with
respect to sale deeds in question, the appellants shall be entitled to
remission of stamp duty. As per clause 1(a) of SRO 75/60 and as per
Section 110(2) of the Kerala Act, 1969, notwithstanding the repeal of the
Travancore Act, 1951 and the Madras Act, 1932, all notifications under
the repealed Acts shall be deemed to have been respectively made,
6
issued and instituted under the Kerala Act, 1969. The matter reached up
to the Full Bench of the High Court. On interpretation of the relevant
provisions of the Kerala Act, 1969 and on interpretation of Section
110(2) of the Kerala Act, 1969 (repealed provision), the Full Bench of the
High Court has answered the reference as under:
“(1) SRO No. 75/60 issued under section 35 of the TC Act and section 30
of the Madras Act is saved by virtue of section 110(2) of the Kerala Act
only to the extent it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Kerala Act.
(2) SRO No. 75/60 should be understood within the limitations of sections
110(2) and 40(1)(a) of the Kerala Act.
(3) The benefit of remission of stamp duty is available only in respect of
instruments executed by or on behalf of a society or by an officer or
member thereof and instrument so executed should be relating to the
business of the society.
(4) The benefit of remission can be claimed by the society only if, but for
such remission, the society, an officer or the member as the case may be,
would have been liable to pay such stamp duty.”
Hence, the present appeals.
5. Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Advocate and
S/Shri Haris Beeran, K. Rajeev and R. Nedumaran, learned counsel
have appeared on behalf of the respective appellants and Shri Jayanth
Muthraj, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the
respondents.
5.1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants have
vehemently submitted that the Full Bench of the High Court has erred in
holding that on the sale deeds in question executed by the members of
7
the society in favour of the society and the respective sale deeds
executed by the society in favour of its members respectively, there shall
not be any remission of stamp duty.
5.2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants have
vehemently submitted that in view of Section 110(2) of the Kerala Act,
1969, the notifications issued under the Travancore Act, 1951 and the
Madras Act, 1932 are saved and they are deemed to have been issued
under the Kerala Act, 1969. It is submitted that therefore SRP No. 75/60
which was issued in exercise of powers conferred under the Travancore
Act, 1951 and the Madras Act, 1932, which provides for remission of
stamp duty on the instruments executed by the co-operative society or
executed by a member in favour of the society, shall be applicable and
therefore on the instruments/sale deeds in question, there shall be
remission of stamp duty.
5.3 It is also submitted on behalf of the appellants that in the
instruments/sale deeds in question, it is specifically provided that the
liability to pay the stamp duty would be upon the society and therefore
also and considering the relevant provisions of the Kerala Act, 1969,
there shall be remission of stamp duty.
5.4 It is further submitted that denying the remission of stamp duty
paid on the instruments/sale deeds in question would defeat the object
8
and purpose of providing the exemption from payment of stamp duty
with respect to society.
5.5 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to hold that on the
instruments/sale deeds in question executed either by the members of
the society in favour of the society (Civil Appeal Nos. 6588/2015 &
6830/2022) and the sale deeds executed by the society in favour of its
respective members (rest of the civil appeals), there shall be remission
of stamp duty as per clause 1(a) of SRO No. 75/60.
6. While opposing the present appeals, Shri Jayanth Muthraj, learned
Senior Advocate has vehemently submitted that on true interpretation of
Section 110(2) of the Kerala Act, 1969 and having found that the
Travancore Act, 1951 and the Madras Act, 1932 and SRO 75/60 issued
in exercise of powers under the aforesaid Acts are not saved as they are
inconsistent with the provisions of the Kerala Act, 1969 (Section 40 of
the Kerala Act, 1969).
6.1 It is submitted that as per SRO 75/60, the instruments executed by
or on behalf of any registered co-operative society; instruments executed
by officer of such society and instruments executed by a member in his
own capacity or/and in the capacity of a Guardian of minor and relating
to the business thereof, there shall be remission of stamp duty. It is
submitted that however so far as the Kerala Act, 1969 is concerned, as
per Section 40 thereof, on the instruments executed by or on behalf of a
9
society or by an officer or member thereof and relating to the business of
such society and only in cases where, but for such remission, the
society, officer or member, as the case may be, would be liable to pay
such stamp duty, there shall be remission of stamp duty. It is submitted
that as per Section 40 of the Kerala Act, 1969, there shall not be any
remission of stamp duty in case any instrument is executed by a
member in his own capacity or/and in the capacity of a Guardian of a
minor, which was there in SRO 75/60. It is submitted that as per Section
30 of the Kerala Stamp Act, the payment of stamp duty is exempted in
respect of documents/sale deeds/instruments executed by or on behalf
of a co-operative society. It is submitted that therefore when the society
is not liable to pay the stamp duty, there is no question of any remission
of stamp duty. It is submitted that therefore the respective appellants
shall not be entitled to remission of stamp duty on the instruments/sale
deeds in question.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at
length.
The appellants herein are claiming remission of stamp duty on the
respective instruments/sale deeds, the particulars of which are
reproduced hereinabove. In two cases, the sale deeds are executed by
the members in favour of the society and in rest of the cases, the sale
deeds are executed by the society in favour of respective members. The
10
respective appellants are claiming the benefit of remission of stamp duty
under clause 1(a) of SRO 75/60. It is the case on behalf of the
appellants that despite the repeal of the Travancore Act, 1951 and the
Madras Act, 1932, SRO 75/60 which was issued under the aforesaid
Acts is saved. However, as rightly interpreted and held by the Full
Bench of the High Court, the notification issued under the repealed Acts
shall be saved to the extent “so far as may be”. Therefore, on true
interpretation of Section 110(2) of the Kerala Act, 1969, the provisions of
the repealed Acts and/or the notifications and/or orders issued under the
repealed Acts is/are saved and/or deemed to have been issued under
the Kerala Act, 1969 to the extent the same is not at variance or
inconsistent with the provisions of the Kerala Act, 1969. The following
chart would demonstrate to what extent clause 1(a) of SRO 75/60 is
inconsistent with Section 40 of the Kerala Act, 1969:
| S.R.O. No. 75 of 1960 clause 1(a) | Kerala State Co-Operative States Act 1969<br>Sec. 40 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | instruments executed by or<br>on behalf of any registered<br>Co-operative Society; | 1. | instrument executed by or on behalf<br>of a Society |
| 2. | instruments executed by<br>any officer of such society. | 2. | by an officer or member thereof |
| 3. | Instrument executed by a<br>member in his own<br>capacity or/and in the<br>capacity of a guardian of<br>minor. | 3. | ______________ |
| 4. | relating to the business<br>thereof. | 4. | relating to the business of such<br>society |
| 5. | ______________ | 5. | in cases where, but for such |
11
| remission the society, officer or<br>member, as the case may be, would<br>be liable to pay such stamp duty; |
|---|
8. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the instruments executed by
a member in his own capacity or/and in the capacity of a Guardian of a
minor, which was there in clause 1(a) of SRO 75/60 is missing insofar as
Section 40 of the Kerala Act, 1969 is concerned. Section 40 of the
Kerala Act, 1969 further provides that only in cases where, but for such
remission the society, officer or member, as the case may be, would be
liable to pay such stamp duty. As per Section 40 (1)(a), the stamp duty
chargeable under the Kerala Act, 1959 in respect of any instrument
executed by or on behalf of a society or by an officer or member thereof
and relating to the business of such society….. and in cases where, but
for such remission the society, officer or member, as the case may be,
would be liable to pay such stamp duty, there shall be remission of
stamp duty. Thus, as clause 1(a) of SRO 75/60 is inconsistent with the
relevant provisions of the Kerala Act, 1969, more particularly Section 40
thereof, the said order is not saved and cannot be said to be deemed to
have been issued under the Kerala Act, 1969 (Section 110(2) of the
Kerala Act, 1969) as has been contended on behalf of the appellants.
Therefore, considering the express provision contained in Section 40(1)
(a) of the Kerala Act, 1969, a member of the society executing the
12
document in his own capacity or in the capacity of a Guardian or a minor
shall not be entitled to the benefit of remission of stamp duty.
9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
appellants herein shall not be entitled to the benefit of remission of
stamp duty on the instruments/sale deeds in question. Such
instruments/sale deeds in question cannot be said to be executed by or
on behalf of a society or by an officer or member thereof relating to the
business of the society. We are in complete agreement with the view
taken by the Full Bench of the High Court.
10. Under the circumstances, all these appeals fail and the same
deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. However, there
shall be no order as to costs.
………………………………..J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ……………………………….J.
OCTOBER 14, 2022. [KRISHNA MURARI]
13