In a significant ruling on stamp duty in partition suits, the Calcutta High Court has held that a final decree incorporating a partition plan is liable to stamp duty-even if physical division of the property was found to be impractical.
Justice Om Narayan Rai dismissed a writ petition filed by Subrata Nundy, who had challenged the imposition of stamp duty on a final decree passed in a long-pending family partition dispute.
Read also:- Gujarat HC Clears Way for Police Recruit, Says Minor, Quashed FIR Can’t Block Appointment
Background of the Case
The dispute traces back to a civil suit for partition (C.S. No. 91 of 2013) filed on the Original Side of the High Court. A preliminary decree was passed in 2013 and later modified in 2016, declaring the petitioner entitled to a 12.5% share in three-fourths of the suit property.
A Commissioner was appointed to prepare a partition plan. However, a structural engineer later reported that the building was in a dilapidated condition and could not withstand construction for physical division.
Subsequently, the original plaintiffs sought sale of the property by public auction. Instead, the petitioner offered to purchase their share. A registered conveyance deed was executed on August 5, 2023, upon payment of stamp duty.
On November 29, 2023, a coordinate bench disposed of the suit, directing that the Commissioner’s partition plan and the registered conveyance be made part of the final decree.
The Stamp Duty Dispute
After the decree was drawn up, the draft was sent to the Collector of Kolkata for assessment of stamp duty. The Collector imposed duty under:
- Article 45 (Partition)
- Article 23 (Sale) of Schedule 1A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
The petitioner objected, arguing that stamp duty for the conveyance had already been paid. While the Collector later withdrew the sale-related component, he retained ₹45,000 as stamp duty for partition.
This led to the present writ petition.
Petitioner’s Argument
Appearing for the petitioner, counsel argued that under Section 2(15) of the Indian Stamp Act, only a “final order for effecting a partition” is chargeable.
Since the structural engineer had declared physical partition impossible, the decree did not actually “effect” partition. It merely acknowledged the situation. Therefore, the decree could not be treated as an “instrument of partition.”
It was also argued that no new rights were created and hence no stamp duty was payable.
Read also:- Supreme Court Clears Siddhartha Reddy in Actress Pratyusha Death Case, Says No Proof of Abetment
State’s Stand
The State countered that the final decree declared and confirmed the shares of the parties. Once a final decree is passed in a partition suit, it takes the character of a conclusive determination of rights.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the State argued that whether physical division was feasible or not was irrelevant once the court had passed a final decree incorporating the partition plan.
Court’s Observations
Justice Rai examined the meaning of “instrument of partition” under Section 2(15) of the Stamp Act. The provision includes “a final order for effecting a partition passed by any Civil Court.”
The judge turned to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to partition suits and the distinction between preliminary and final decrees.
Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Court noted that a final decree is one that conclusively determines the rights of parties after necessary inquiry.
“The final decree merely carries into fulfilment the preliminary decree,” the bench observed while referring to settled law.
Importantly, the Court pointed out that:
- The Commissioner’s partition plan was made part of the decree.
- The parties accepted the decree without challenge.
- No application was made by any party seeking sale under the Partition Act before the final decree was passed.
Even though physical division by metes and bounds was not feasible, the parties chose to accept the arrangement.
The Court held that such acceptance clearly showed an intention to treat the matter as finally settled.
Read also:- Supreme Court Clears Siddhartha Reddy in Actress Pratyusha Death Case, Says No Proof of Abetment
On Creation of New Rights
Rejecting the argument that no new rights were created, the Court clarified that stamp duty in partition matters is not dependent on the creation of fresh rights.
It is levied on the instrument that formally records division of shares.
“The final decree is a formal record of the division of shares of the parties,” the Court noted.
Scope of Judicial Review
The Court also reminded that under Article 226 of the Constitution, it would interfere with an order only if it was arbitrary, without jurisdiction, illegal, or violative of natural justice.
None of these grounds, the judge said, were made out.
Decision
Holding that the decree qualifies as a “final order for effecting a partition,” the Court upheld the Collector’s demand for stamp duty under Article 45.
The writ petition (WPO 506 of 2025) was dismissed. No costs were awarded.
Case Title: Subrata Nundy vs. The Collector of Kolkata, Stamp and Revenue & Ors.
Case No.: WPO 506 of 2025
Decision Date: February 18, 2026
