In Brief
Vijay Kumar Goyal sought specific performance of a 1996 Memorandum of Agreement and 2011 agreement to sell land. Trial and High Courts ordered him to pay deficient stamp duty under provisions for agreements followed by delivery of possession. The Supreme Court allowed his appeal, holding that since he already possessed the property before executing these agreements—as stated in their own recitals—no delivery of possession occurred through them. Therefore, the stamp duty provision for 'delivery of possession' agreements did not apply, and the orders demanding deficient stamp duty and penalties were set aside."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.