Antony Dominic, J. This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge in WP(C) No.4203/07. The appellant filed the writ petition challenging Ext.P4, whereby, the Corporation demanded remittance of `3,15,675/- towards the deficit stamp duty payable on Ext.P3 treating the said document as a lease deed. This demand was challenged by the appellant contending that Ext.P3 being only a licence deed, stamp duty as demanded in Ext.P4 was not payable. However, in the judgment under appeal, the learned single Judge referring to the provisions of the Kerala Stamp Act and the Transfer of Property Act held that the transaction in question is a lease and that therefore, appropriate stamp duty is payable. It is this judgment, which is under challenge before us.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 3.
W.A.No.249/10
: 2 :
3. Reading of Ext.P3 agreement between the parties shows that grant is made referring to Section 215 of the Kerala Municipalities Act and the document is also described as a licence deed. Such being the nomenclature used in the document and also taking note of the terms and conditions thereof, we are inclined to think that Ext.P3 creates only a licence and not a lease as now found by the learned single Judge. This is all the more so in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in its judgment in New Bus-Stand Shop Owners Association v. Corporation of Kozhikode {(2009) 10 SCC 455}. In such circumstances, the judgment under appeal cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the judgment is set aside. Ext.P4 is quashed and the appeal is allowed as above.
Rp //True Copy// PA to Judge Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE