The main legal point established in the judgment is that the value furnished to the court for which the sale deed was executed should be taken into consideration for determining the proper stamp duty, and the collection of additional stamp duty and registration charges contrary to the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act was not legal and proper.

K. GNANAPRAKASAM, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed this petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to refund the excess stamp fees and registration fees collected by the respondents from the petitioner for registering the sale deed.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are as follows the petitioner filed a suit in O. S. No. 465 of 1975 on the file of District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram for specific performance of the contract of sale and got a decree and the appeal filed by the defendants in A. S No. 27 of 1979 before the Sub Court, Kancheepuram was also dismissed. Even thereafter the defendants have not executed the sale deed and thereupon the plaintiff filed Execution Petition and after complying with the legal formalities, the learned District Munsif, Kancheepuram executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. The sale consideration stipulation was Rs. 1,000/- and the sale deed was engrossed on a nonjudicial stamp paper to the value of Rs. 120/-i. e. , at 12% ad valorem as required under the Stamp Act. But, however, the Joint sub-Registrar directed the petitioner to pay higher stamp duty namely on the market value of the land at Rs. 14,000/-and demanded the difference in the stamp duty. The representation made by the petitioner was of no avail and he was ordered to pay the difference in stamp duty. Further, under threat of proceedings under Revenue Recovery Act, the amounts were collected from the petitioner and he had remitted Rs. 1,560/-towards additional stamp duty and Rs. 130 towards additional registration charges on 21. 7. 1984.

( 3 ) THE petitioner having paid the amount, issued a notice to the fourth respondent on 7. 1. 1986 and the same wasduly served upon him on 17. 9. 1986 and the Government of tamil Nadu through its Secretary, Commercial taxes and Religious Endowments Department sent a reply on 15. 4. 1988, contending that the stamp duly collected from the petitioner was proper. That, thereafter the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

( 4 ) HEARD. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the collection of additional stamp duty and additional registration charges are contrary to the salient provisions of Section 47 (A) of the Indian Stamp act which reads as follows : "instruments of conveyance etc. , under valued how to be dealt with.- (1) If the Registering Officer appointed under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act XVI of 1908) while registering any instrument of conveyance, (exchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement) has reason to believe that the market value of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance exchange gift, release of benami right or settlement) has not been truly set forth in the instrument be may, after registering such instrument, refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon. The plain reading of the section would disclose that only when the Registering officer has reason to believe that the market value of the property on a document sought to be registered has not been duly set forth in the instrument he may, after registering such instrument after the same of the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon. But, in our case, it cannot be said that the instrument was not properly valued, the reason being that the person has executed the instruments on the basis of the decree passed in a suit for specific performance of the contract and as such, the value furnished to the court for which the sale deed was executed should be taken into consideration. Further, the suit for specific performance was filed in the year 1975, but the Court executed the sale deed only on 4. 4. 1983, after a lapse of about 8 years, for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible. In my view, the value on the date of agreement alone has got to be taken into account for the purposes of arriving at th