Date of reserved for orders : 09.09.2026

Date of pronouncement : 16.10.2026

Date of uploading : 16.10.2026

APHC010026862018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3333]

FRIDAY, THE 16

th

DAY OF OCTOBER 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

WRIT PETITION NO: 1386/2018

Between:

1. M/S. LOTUS ASSOCIATES, REP. BY ITS PARTNER, SRI

KOGANDI SATYANARAYANA, S/O. RAMAIAH, AGED

ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.54 -1418-25/6A,

PLOT NO.23, 7TH ROAD, BHARATI NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA -

500 008.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

STAMPS AND REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT,

AMARAVATHI, GOLLAPUDI, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR

DISTRICT.

2. THE COMMISSIONER, AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF

REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, ANDHRA PRADESH,

ENIKAPADU, VIJAYAWADA.

3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, AND COLLECTOR, UNDER

STAMPS ACT, VISAKHAPATNAM.

2

VS,J

WP_1386_2018

4. THE SUB REGISTRAR, SABBAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying

that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the

High Court may be pleased toto issue a Writ, order or direction,

especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the

proceedings No.CCRA1/9055/2006, Dated 31-03-2017 of the 2nd

respondent confirming the order passed by the 3rd respondent vide

proceedings No.89-1/G1/2006 dated 14-06-2006, as illegal,

arbitrary, unjust and violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the

Constitution of India and also the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and

consequently direct the respondents to set aside the order passed

by the Respondents 2 and 3 vide proceedings

No.CCRA1/9055/2006, Dated 31-03-2017 and No.89- 1/G1/2006

dated 14-06-2006 and direct the respondents to register and release

the documents P2/2006

IA NO: 1 OF 2018

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,

the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd and 3rd

respondents to register and release the documents P 2/2006 by

suspending the order of the respondents 2 and 3 vide proceedings

No.CCRA1/9055/2006, Dated 31-03-2017 and No.89- 1/G1/2006

dated 14-06-2006 pending disposal of the writ petition

IA NO: 2 OF 2018

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,

the High Court may be pleased

3

VS,J

WP_1386_2018

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. AYESHA AZMA S

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

The Court made the following:

4

VS,J

WP_1386_2018

ORDER:

1) The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

“…. to issue a Writ, order or direction, especially one in the

nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings

No.CCRA1/9055/2006 Dated 31.03.2017 of the 2

nd

respondent confirming the order passed by the 3

rd

respondent

vide proceedings No.89-1/G1/2006 dated 14.06.2006 as

illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of Articles 14 and 300-A

of the Constitution of India and also the Indian Stamp Act 1899

and consequently direct the respondents to set aside the order

passed by the Respondents 2 and 3 vide proceedings

No.CCRA1/9055/2006 Dated 31.03.2017 and No.89 -

1/G1/2006 dated 14.06.2006 and direct the respondents to

register and release the documents P2/2006.….”

2) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

The petitioner company entered into a transaction of

“Assignment of Debt” for consideration of Rs.1,69,13,000/- with IDBI

Bank Limited, against the original loan of Rs.2,75,00,000/- which is a

banking company having its head quarters at Mumbai, which gave a

loan of Rs.2,75,00,000/- to A.P. Refractories Limited. The said

company went into liquidation and official liquidator is appointed by

this Court. The said loan of Rs.2,75,00,000/- was granted on the

security basis of the facilities, containing the agriculture lands in the

village of Duvvada, Talarivari Palem, Aganampudi and Saniwada.

The said assignment of Debt was drawn-up on a stamp paper of

Rs.100/- assuming that it is a transfer of mortgage under Article 53

(b) (ii) of the Schedule 1A of the amended A.P. Stamp Act. The said

5

VS,J

WP_1386_2018

deed was executed on 05.01.2006 at Visakhapatnam and when the

document was presented before respondent No.4 for registration, it

was kept pending registration vide endorsement No.P2/2006 and a

reference was made to the District Registrar, Visakhapatnam, who in

turn called for the objections from the petitioner herein before

passing further orders and the petitioner filed the objections which

reads as follows:

(1) “Deed of Assignment of Debt” is an Parripasu charge from

financial institution and declared that he is liable only for

the debt of the property but not transferring the right on the

property.

(2) The deficit stamp duty is not applicable for this document.

3) Considering the objections submitted by the petitioner,

respondent No.3 vide order dated 14.06.2006 has determined the

referred deed as conveyance chargeable with stamp duty under

Article 20 of schedule 1A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 at 5% on the

value of the property and arrived at Rs.46,28,8258/- as deficit stamp

duty with penalty of five times, aggrieved by the said order, the

petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 – the

Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps,

Andhra Pradesh. However, respondent No.2 confirmed the order of

respondent No.3 by taking into consideration Section 3 of the

transfer of the property Act and Section 2 (10) of the Stamp Act, and

in view of the undertaking memo filed by the petitioner herein,

respondent No.2 levied penalty for one time and directed the

petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs.92,57,650/-.

6

VS,J

WP_1386_2018

4) It is the further case of the petitioner that the reasons assigned

by respondent No.3 while impounding the document is not tenable

under law and respondent No.2 ought to have allowed the appeal

instead of confirming the order passed by respondent No.3. In the

present case, there is no transfer of assignment of any right in the

property and it is only a transfer of assignment of debt. Further,

respondent No.3 should have seen that there is no malafide

intention on the part of the petitioner herein in paying the stamp duty,

the deed was entered into on the 5

th

day of January, 2006 and the

same was presented for registration on the same day, therefore,

there is no occasion for the respondents to levy any stamp duty

penalty on the document because the petitioner did not present the

document at a belated stage or the respondents found that the

documents are insufficiently stamped at later point of time i.e. after

completion of the registration.

5) Further, Section 24 of the Stamp Act, has no application to the

present facts of the case. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not look into

the provision and the contents of assignment deed while impounding

the document and levying the penalty. The security of the loan

amount under transfer is an equitable mortgage by way deposit of

title deeds which is not liable for any kind of stamp duty or

registration. In the present case, evidently the loan is secured by

way of deposit of title deeds which is not in dispute at all. When the

said question is not in dispute, the maximum stamp duty assuming

without admitting, payable would be a maximum of Rs.50,000/- by

application of latest Law, enacted by the Government of Andhra

Pradesh, and there is no basis for levying stamp duty of 5% and

imposing the penalty. A clear distinction is drawn between

7

VS,J

WP_1386_2018

conveyance deed governed by Article 20 and debt or interest that is

secured by mortgage deed governed by Article 53 (b) of schedule

1A. Therefore, the respondents cannot invoke section 2 (10) read

with Article schedule 1A of the Stamp Act. Thus, the order of

respondent Nos.2 and 3 is contrary to law and the provisions of the

Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

6) Respondent No.4 – the Sub-Registrar, Sabbavaram,

Visakhapatnam filed counter contending that the petitioner has

submitted a Deed of Assignment of Debt dated 05.01.2006 on a

Rs.100/- Non-Judicial Stamp Paper for registration. Since the

document is only a conveyance, which falls under Article 20 of

Schedule 1A of Stamp Act and attracts stamp duty of Rs.46,28,925/-

i.e., @ 5% on the value of the property and the document was

engrossed on stamp paper of Rs.100/- only, the Sub-Registrar,

Sabbavaram has forwarded the document P2/2006 to the District

Registrar, Visakhapatnam through Letter dated 27.2.2006. The

District Registrar, Visakhapatnam returned the document vide

Memo.No.89/G1/06, dated 10.3.2006 with instructions to collect the

deficit stamp duty under Section 41 of Indian Stamp Act and take

appropriate action. Thereafter, the Sub-Registrar, Sabbavaram,

Visakhapatnam District issued a notice dated 25.03.2006 to pay the

deficit Stamp Duty and Registration Fee as per the provisions of

Section 24 of the Indian Stamp Act. In response to the said notice,

the Petitioner submitted an un-dated representation stating that “he

is liable only for the debt or the property and not transferring the right

on the property, hence Section 24 of Act No.15 to pay the deficit

stamp duty and deficit registration charges are not applicable to his

case”. Since the Petitioner stated that Section 24 of the Act does not

8

VS,J

WP_1386_2018

apply to his case and he need not pay the deficit stamp duty and

registration fee, the matter was once-again referred to the District

Registrar, Visakhapatnam vide Letter dated 9.6.2006. The District

Registrar, Visakhapatnam after issuing notice dated 12.6.2006 to the

Petitioner calling for objections and having perused the said

objections and taking into consideration the law laid down in this

regard, passed a detailed order dated 14.6.2006 directing the

Petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.46,28,825/- with penalty

of 5 times deficit stamp duty within 30 days from the date of receipt

of the order. However, the Petitioner has not complied with the order

dated 14.6.2006, instead filed an Appeal before the Chief Controlling

Revenue Authority and Commissioner and Inspector General of

Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh and the said Authority

dismissed the Appeal vide Proceedings dated 7.4.2011.

7) It is further contended that aggrieved by the order dated

07.04.2011, the petitioner filed W.P.No.11814 of 2013 before this

Court and this Court vide orders dated 22.07.2013 while setting

aside the order dated 07.04.2011 remanded the matter to the Chief

Controlling Revenue Authority and Director and Inspector General of

Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh for fresh disposal duly

giving opportunity to the Petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal

before the said Authority stating that his father being the Managing

Partner of the Firm expired on 06.03.2012. The Appellate Authority

after affording an opportunity to the petitioner and taking into

consideration the facts and law issued proceedings dated

31.03.2017 levying one penalty of Rs.46,28,825/- and penalty of

Rs.46,28,825/- by reducing the penalty of 5 times imposed by the

District Registrar. The document in question is an assignment of a

9

VS,J

WP_1386_2018

Debt of Rs.1,69,13,000/ - for realizing an amount

of Rs.2,75,00,000/-.

8) It is further contended that an assignment or re-assignment of

a debt is a conveyance within the meaning of “Conveyance”

definition. A book debt like any other debt is property. An instrument

transferring book debts is therefore a conveyance. It is determined

that the document submitted by the Petitioner is only a Conveyance

which falls under Article 20 of Schedule IA of Stamp Act, therefore,

the Petitioner is liable to pay the defic it stamp duty

of Rs.46,28,825/- and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

9) Ms.Ayesha Azma S, learned counsel for the petitioner

contended that the document presented by the petitioner is

“assignment of debt” does not fall under the definition of Section

2(10) of the Indian Stamp Act. In the instant case, the document falls

under the provisions of Article 53(b) of the Schedule IA of stamp act

and not a conveyance deed as under Section 2(10) of the Act.

Neither ownership nor possession of the lands was given or agreed

to be given by the Borrower to the Bank, and by Bank to the

Petitioner, and even title to the lands never passed. Even as per the

verbatim in the deed, there is no transfer of title, no holding of

ownership and no enjoyment of possession. The assignor Bank

itself, never owned the lands, as such transfer of the same to

petitioner/assignee does not arise. A mortgagee by deposit of title

deeds has a security interest to demand, receive and recover the

debts in its own name and right, but not ownership, therefore,

directing the petitioner to pay 5% conveyance duty on the market

value of the entire property, is arbitrary and irrational as the

10

VS,J

WP_1386_2018

transaction did not take place and requested to allow the writ

petition.

10) Learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration

contended that as the transfer in question is accompanied by the

attachment securing the debt, it cannot be regarded as a mere

transfer of an actionable claim. The transaction, therefore, falls

within the scope of a conveyance and is liable to be stamped

accordingly under the Indian Stamp Act. In the present case, since

the debt is transferred together with the property attached to and

securing such debt, the transaction cannot be treated as a mere

assignment or transfer of an actionable claim. The transfer,

therefore, involves an interest in the property itself and falls within

the scope of a “conveyance” as defined under Section 2(10) of the

Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Consequently, the instrument is liable to

stamp duty under Article 23 of Schedule I, and the stamp duty has to

be determined with reference to the value or consideration

attributable to the property comprised in the conveyance, and not

merely with reference to the outstanding amount of the debt and

requested to dismiss the writ petition.

11) The respondents vehemently contended that the document

submitted by the petitioner for registration is a conveyance deed,

therefore, the petitioner is required to pay stamp duty as ordered in

the impugned proceedings.

12) Before going into the merits of the case, it is appropriate to

refer to definitions of “conveyance” as defined under Section 2 (10)

and stamp duty payable on conveyance deed as defined in Article

53 of the Indian Stamp Act.

11

VS,J

WP_1386_2018

Section 2 (10) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is as follows:

“2 (10) Conveyance includes a conveyance on sale, every instrument

and every decree or final order of any Civil Court [every order made by the

High Court under Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Central Act 1 of

1956) in respect of Amalgamation or merger of companies] 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, and which is not otherwise specifically provided for by

Schedule I or Schedule IA, as the case may be"

13) Stamp duty payable (as applicable to Andhra Pradesh) on

certain instruments under the Indian Stamp Act, 1922 is shown in

Schedule 1 A.

Article 20 of Schedule 1A of the Indian Stamp Act deals with

stamp duty payable on “Conveyance” deeds, which is as follows:

Conveyance as defined by

Section 2(10), not being a sale,

charged under (No.47A) or a

transfer charged or exempted

under No. 53.

(a) Where the amount or value of the

consideration for such conveyance as

set-forth therein of or the market value

of the property which is the subject

matter of the conveyance whichever is

higher does not exceed Rs. 50;

Two rupees fifty paise

(b) Where it exceeds Rs. 50 but does

not exceed Rs. 1,000

Five rupees for every one hundred

rupees or part thereof.

(c) Where it exceed Rs.1,000 The same duty as under Clause (b) for

the first Rs.1,000 and for every Rs.500

or part thereof in excess of Rs.1,000,

12

VS,J

WP_1386_2018

twenty-five rupees

(d) Conveyance, so far as it related to

amalgamation or merger of companies

under the order of High Court under

section 394 of the Companies Act,

1956.

Two rupees for every one hundred

rupees or part thereof of the market

value of the property, which is the

subject matter of such conveyance.

14) Article 53 of Schedule 1A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 deals

with stamp duty payable on “Transfer” deed (Whether with or without

consideration):-, which is as follows:

(a) Of debentures being marketable

securities, whether the debenture is

liable to duty or not, except debentures

provided for by section 8:

One half of the duty payable on a

Conveyance for a consideration or

market value equal to the face amount

for the debenture.

(b) of any interest secured by a bond,

mortgage-deed or policy of insurance –

(i) If the duty on such bond,

mortgaged-deed or policy of insurance

does not exceed thirty rupees.

The duty with which such bond,

mortgage deed or policy of insurance

is chargeable.

(ii) In any other case Thirty Rupees

(c) of any property under the

Administrators General Act, 1963,

(Central Act 45 of 1963).

Thirty-five rupees

(d) of any trust- property from one

trustee to another trustee or from a

trustee to a beneficiary.

Thirty rupees or such smaller amount

as may be chargeable under Clauses

(a) and (b) of this Article 8

Exemptions

Transfer by endorsement

(a) of a bill of exchange, cheque or

13

VS,J

WP_1386_2018

promissory note ;

(b) of a bill of lading, delivery order

warrant for goods, or other mercantile

document of title to goods;

(c) of a policy of insurance;

(d) of securities of the Central

Government.”

15) Perused the document presented by the petitioner for

registration. The document is titled as “deed of assignment of debt”.

The agreement that is entered into between the petitioner and the

bank is of assignment of debt for consideration of Rs.1,69,13,000/-,

that is transferring the right to recover a sum of Rs.2,75,00,000/-

from the Borrower company which is under liquidation. As per the

recitals of the said document, the petitioner has right to recover the

amount from the borrower company. It appears from the document

that the transaction is made in the form of the transfer of interest on

already existing mortgage but not the new creation of the mortgage

inter-vivos. Since there is no inclusion or creation of new interest,

there is no necessity to pay the stamp duty on the entire property.

The stamp duty exists on assignment of debt for a consideration of

Rs.1,69,13,000/- which comes to around 50,000/ -. But, the

respondents demanded to pay the stamp duty upon the whole

property that is mortgaged including the penalty.

16) It is evident from the record that the facility documents and

other documents will be handed over to the assignee as such, stamp

duty payable in respect of mortgage deed without possession is

14

VS,J

WP_1386_2018

payable on the amount secured by such mortgage deed but not on

the market value of the property offered as a security. As there is no

transfer of title, the deed ought to be stamped as under Article 53(b)

of Schedule IA and not as a conveyance deed under Section 2(10)

r/w Article 20 of the Act.

17) The assignor IDBI itself, never owned the lands for it to even

transfer the same to petitioner/assignee. A mortgagee by deposit of

title deeds has a security interest to demand, receive and recover

the debts in its own name and right, but not ownership. The

Borrower/Official Liquidator remained owner. What was assigned

was a debt plus the accessory security interest demand, receive and

recover the debts in its own name and right.

18) Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of

the Allahabad High Court in “Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. State

of Uttar Pradesh

1

”, wherein the Court held that a deed of

assignment of debts together with underlying securities is

chargeable as a transfer of an interest secured by a mortgage-deed

under Article 62(c) of Schedule I-B of the U.P. Stamp Act (pari

materia with Article 53(b) of Schedule I-A as applicable in Andhra

Pradesh), and is not a conveyance under Article 23 (pari materia

with Article 20).

19) In the said judgment, the Court referred to the Judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ICICI Bank Limited Vs. Official

Liquidator of APS Star Industries Ltd. & others

2

”, wherein the

1

2018 AIR ALLAHABAD 182

2

(2010) 10 SCC 1

15

VS,J

WP_1386_2018

Court held that the debt at the hands of the Bank is an asset. The

Bank (Assignor) can transfer it along with the mortgagee's rights in

the mortgaged property without in any manner affecting the rights of

the borrower. Relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:

"46. As stated above, an outstanding in the account of a borrower(s)

(customer) is a debt due and payable by the borrower(s) to the bank.

Secondly, the bank is the owner of such debt. Such debt is an asset in the

hands of the bank as a secured creditor or mortgagee or hypothecatee.

The bank can always transfer its asset. Such transfer in no manner affects

any right or interest of the borrower(s) (customer). Further, there is no

prohibition in the BR Act, 1949 in the bank transferring its assets inter se.

Even in the matter of assigning debts, it cannot be said that the banks are

trading in debts, as held by the High Court(s). The assignor bank has never

purchased the debt(s). It has advanced loans against security as part of its

banking business. The account of a client in the books of the bank

becomes Non Performing Asset when the client fails to repay. In assigning

the debts with underlying security, the bank is only transferring its asset

and is not acquiring any rights of its client(s). The bank transfers its asset

for a particular agreed price and is no longer entitled to recover anything

from the borrower(s). The moment ICICI Bank Ltd. transfers the debt with

underlying security, the borrower(s) ceases to be the borrower(s) of the

ICICI Bank Ltd. and becomes the borrower(s) of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

(assignee). At this stage, we wish to once again emphasize that debts are

assets of the assignor bank. The High Court(s) has erred in not

appreciating that the assignor bank is only transferring its rights under a

contract and its own asset, namely, the debt as also the mortgagee's rights

in the mortgaged properties without in any manner affecting the rights of

the borrower(s)/mortgagor(s) in the contract or in the assets. None of the

clauses of the impugned Deed of Assignment transfers any obligations of

the assignor towards the assignee."

16

VS,J

WP_1386_2018

20) A single instrument may embody several purposes. But what

is relevant for the purpose of the Stamp Act, is the dominant purpose

of the instrument. On perusal of the document, it is clear that the

dominant purpose was to transfer/assign the debts along with the

underlying securities, thereby, entitling the Assignee to demand,

receive and recover the debts in its own name and right. The

question that would arise is under which Article of Schedule 1-B of

the Stamp Act, the instrument would be charged to stamp duty i.e.

Conveyance or Transfer.

21) The term 'Conveyance' denotes an instrument in writing by

which some title or interest is transferred from one person to other. It

would appear from the definition that actual transfer of property is an

essential feature of "conveyance". The present case does not

appear to be of that type. Emphasis may be laid on the words "on

sale" and "is transferred" used in the definition of the expression

"Conveyance". These words are significant. They denote that the

document itself should create or vest a complete title in the subject

matter of the transfer, in the vendee.

22) A perusal of the various clauses of the instrument would show

that the debt which is an asset in the hands of the Assignor was sold

and assigned absolutely to the Assignee. The deed stipulated, inter

alia, that the Assignee shall have all the rights and obligations under

the financial instruments relevant to such debts as if they were

executed by the debtors concerned in its favour. Under the

instrument in question, in substance and purpose, primarily the

rights of the Assignor to recover the debts secured by the underlying

17

VS,J

WP_1386_2018

securities has been transferred. The requirement of conveyance or

sale could not be said to be satisfied.

23) Debt is purely an intangible property, like, intellectual property

right or goodwill, as against documentary intangibles, viz., bill of

lading, promissory note or bill of exchange, which has to be claimed

or enforced by action and not by taking physical possession thereof,

in contrast to immovable and movable property.

24) At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that the Official

Liquidator already disposed off the movable property of the borrower

and distributed the certain monies and reimbursed expenses to the

Assignor. The specific portion in page No.2 of the “deed of

assignment of debt” is as follows:

“The Assignee is aware that the Borrower is in liquidation pursuant to

the orders of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in C.P.No.41/1986 and

Official Liquidator attached to Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh is

conducting liquidation proceedings. The Assignee also aware that the

Official Liquidator already disposed off the movable property of the

borrower and distributed the certain monies and reimbursed expenses to

the Assignor, wherein the Assignee shall not have any claim against the

Assignor.”

25) The assignment of debt is an "Instrument" which transfers the

debt along with rights/interest in the security underlying such debts.

No immovable property has been transferred or sold. The right under

the contract to recover the debts has been transferred by way of

assignment deed. The Assignor could have transferred only those

rights, it had in the underlying securities. Since the borrower(s) had

never transferred the title in the immovable property given in security

18

VS,J

WP_1386_2018

to the Assignor, the Bank, could merely transfer its rights i.e.

mortgagee's rights in the property to recover the debts only.

26) The Assignor never had any title to the underlying securities.

In assigning the debts with underlying security, the Assignor only

transferred that asset for a particular price whereafter it no longer

remained entitled to enforce it's rights or recover anything from the

borrower(s) against the debt/s. The right so transferred was primarily

the right to recover the debts, in accordance with law, by proceeding

against the underlying security furnished by the bonds/mortgage-

deed(s). Under the Instrument that right could be exercised only in

the event of default committed by the debtor to discharge the debt,

to the Assignor.

27) The respondents would contend that it is “actionable claim”

and the petitioner has to pay the stamp duty on the entire value of

the property.

28) The term “actionable claim” is referred in Section 3 of the

Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which is as follows:

“actionable claim” means a claim to any debt, other than a debt

secured by mortgage of immoveable property or by hypothecation or

pledge of moveable property, or to any beneficial interest in moveable

property not in the possession, either actual or constructive, of the claimant,

which the Civil Courts recognise as affording grounds for relief, whether

such debt or beneficial interest be existent, accruing, conditional or

contingent;”

19

VS,J

WP_1386_2018

29) From the above definition, it is clear that the “actionable claim”

is a claim to any debt, other than a debt secured by mortgage of

immoveable property or by hypothecation or pledge of moveable

property, or to any beneficial interest in moveable property not in the

possession, either actual or constructive, of the claimant.

30) From the recitals of the document i.e. “deed of assignment of

debt”, it can be said that it is transfer of debt, hence, it may be called

as “actionable claim” as it is a unsecured debt, but it would not fall

under the ambit of “conveyance” as defined under Section 2 (10) of

the Indian Stamp Act for the purpose of stamp duty.

31) In the present case, IDBI Bank Limited is the creditor and

A.P.Refractories Limited is the Debtor and the amount of loan of

Rs.2,75,00,000/- was granted on the security basis containing

certain agricultural land and properties in the villages of Duvada,

Talarivani Palem, Agrampudi and Saniwada owned by the Borrowing

Company. The petitioner company entered into a transaction of

“assignment of debt” for consideration of Rs.1,69,13,000/- with IDBI

Bank limited. Therefore, the District Registrar has to calculate and

impose the stamp duty on the consideration amount only i.e. on

Rs.1,69,13,000/- but not on the total debt of Rs.8,25,20,896/-. The

document which is a “deed of assignment of debt” is covered under

Article 53 (b)(ii) of Schedule I-A of Stamp Act, whereunder the

present document is for consideration of interest secured by

mortgage deed. In the present case, the loan is secured by way of

deposit of title deeds, which is not in dispute at all and when the said

aspect is not in dispute, the stamp duty that ought to be paid, is as

per Article 7 of Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act, 1899, which is

20

VS,J

WP_1386_2018

dealing with, “deposit of title deeds being evidence of the title of any

property” which is 0.5% of the amount secured by such deed i.e. the

loan amount, subject to a maximum of fifty thousand rupees.

32) In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion

that the deed of assignment of debt is not a conveyance deed as no

rights over the property were transferred. Therefore, the impugned

order dated 31.03.2017 passed by respondent No.2 vide

Procgs.No.CCRA1/9055/2006 and the order passed by respondent

No.3 vide proceedings No.89-1/G1/2006 dated 14.06.2006 are liable

to be set aside.

33) Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the order

dated 31.03.2017 passed by respondent No.2 vide

Procgs.No.CCRA1/9055/2006 and the order passed by respondent

No.3 vide proceedings No.89-1/G1/2006 dated 14.06.2006 and

respondent No.4 is directed to register the document presented by

the petitioner if it is otherwise in order. No costs.

34) Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________

JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

16.10.2026

Ksp

Whether the order is :

Reasoned - Yes

Reportable - No