Real legal effect controls stamp duty classification where a supplementary agreement only records a name change and user modification.

A supplementary agreement executed only to reflect a company name change and a permitted change in user was construed by its real legal effect, not its form. Because the original lease-cum-sale arrangement continued on the same terms and the document did not create a fresh transaction, transfer leasehold interest, or bring a new lease or sale into existence, it was not chargeable under the specific stamp duty entry for such transfers. The instrument fell, at most, within the residuary charging provision, and the duty already paid under that entry was sufficient. The enhanced stamp duty demand and related orders were therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a supplementary agreement executed only to reflect the change in the company's name and a permitted change in user, without creation of a fresh transaction or transfer of leasehold interest, attracted stamp duty under article 5(d) of the Schedule appended to the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, or fell under the residuary article 5(f)(i).

Analysis: The instrument had to be construed according to its real and true character. The original lease-cum-sale arrangement continued to subsist on the same terms as to period, premium and rent, and the supplementary agreement merely substituted the changed name of the company and modified a restrictive covenant regarding user. The change of name under the Companies Act did not create a distinct legal entity for the purpose of the transaction. Since no fresh lease or sale was brought into existence and no transfer of property or leasehold interest occurred, the instrument was not one falling under article 5(d). The governing lease remained one under section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, and the instrument, if anything, attracted only the residuary entry.

Conclusion: The supplementary agreement was not chargeable to stamp duty under article 5(d) and the duty already paid under the residuary provision was sufficient; the levy and the impugned orders could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the appellant was held not liable for the enhanced stamp duty demanded on the supplementary agreement.

Ratio Decidendi: For stamp duty purposes, the true legal effect of the instrument governs its classification, and a document executed only to record a change of name and a non-fundamental modification of user, without a fresh transfer or creation of rights, does not amount to a taxable transfer under the specific charging entry.

---