Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 1847
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.
Mrs. G. Mary Chellathai & Anr. - Appellants
Vs.
Tamilnadu Inspector General of Registration & Principal Revenue Authority & Ors. - Respondents
CMA Nos. 168, 169 of 2016; CMP Nos. 1404, 1409 & 1410 of 2016
Decided On : 22-08-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. K. Bijay Sundar
For the Respondents: Mr. Venugopal
Headnote:
Indian Stamp Act - Section 47-A (10),47-A(6),47-A(1),47-A(5),47A(1) and 47A(2) - Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 - Rule 7 - Appellants have entered into agreements for purchase of certain properties situate at Village of District with one - Under agreement , total sale consideration was fixed and an advance was also paid on date of said agreement - While so, it appears that Debt Recovery Tribunal, had, at instance of State Bank of Hyderabad - Therefore, vendor could not perform his obligations under agreements - On coming to know about injunction order, appellants filed separate applications for impleading themselves in proceedings before Debt Recovery Tribunal in Original and sought for vacating the order of injunction - By order the Debt Recovery Tribunal, allowed applications for impleading in IA Nos. 373 and 4 and applications for vacating orders of injunction were directed to be posted for hearing - After stiff contest by Bank, applications for vacation of injunction filed by appellants in IA Nos.374 and 5 were finally allowed by Debt Recovery Tribunal - These appeals were eventually dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal - Since agreement vendor, did not come forward to execute the sale deed after the conclusion of the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, the appellants were forced to file Civil suits seeking specific performance – Held, court had an occasion to deal with the similar situation in others, reported in 2017 (2) LW 818, wherein court had concluded that it will be open to the High Court to follow the judgment which appears to state law more elaborately and accurately and therefore, with due respect to learned Judges who decided Jewellers case - Court would prefer to follow judgment in Residents Welfare Association, (cited supra) which in my considered opinion, states law more elaborately and same is also in tune with that of the three-Judge Bench decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in different cases(cited supra) - In the light of the above, the third point is also answered in favour of appellants - For forgoing reasons court find that proceedings under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act are vitiated due to non-compliance of mandatory requirements of Rules as well as the material date for valuation - It is not seen from any of orders of authorities that valuation reflected in the sale deeds can be said to be a willful under-Valuation on the date of the agreements - Therefore, appeals are allowed and orders passed by authorities are set aside - Learned counsel appearing for appellants would submit that sale deeds have not been returned - There will be a direction to authorities to return sale deeds after complying with formalities of registration, if any that may be pending forthwith -Order accordingly.
Both Appeals are filed under Section 47-A (10) of the Indian Stamp Act. challenging the order of the 1st respondent namely the Inspector General of Registration/Chief Controlling Revenue Authority passed in an Appeal under Section 47-A (6) of the Indian Stamp Act.
The brief facts that led to the filing of these appeals are as follows:
2. The appellants have entered into the agreements for purchase of certain properties situate at Muttukadu Village of Chengalpet District with one Sudir on 06.05.1997 and 08.05.1997. Under the agreement dated 06.05.1997, the total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.22,95,000/- and an advance of Rs.10,00,000/- was also paid on the date of the said agreement. Under the agreement dated 08.05.1997, the total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.22,00,000/- and an advance of Rs.20,00,000/- was paid on the date of the agreement. A fixed time frame was also agreed between the parties for performance of the obligations under the agreements. While so, it appears that the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai, had, at the instance of State Bank of Hyderabad, Thousand lights Branch, granted an order of injunction restraining the vendor under the agreements of sale referred to above from alienating the property that was the subject matter of the agreements on 13.05.1997. Therefore, the vendor could not perform his obligations under the agreements. On coming to know about the injunction order, the appellants filed separate applications for impleading themselves in the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in Original Application No.2 of 1996 and sought for vacating the order of injunction. By order dated 17.03.1998, the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai, allowed the applications for impleading in IA Nos. 373 of 1997 and 4 of 1998 and the applications for vacating the orders of injunction were directed to be posted for hearing. After stiff contest by the Bank, the applications for vacation of injunction filed by the appellants in IA Nos.374 of 1997 and 5 of 1998 were finally allowed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal on 30.01.2004. This order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal was challenged by the Bank before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in MA Nos. 89 and 90 of 2004. These appeals were eventually dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal on 10.12.2004.
3. Since the agreement vendor, namely V. Sudir, did not come forward to execute the sale deed after the conclusion of the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, the appellants were forced to file Civil suits seeking specific performance of the agreements in C.S.Nos.40 of 2006 and 41 of 2006 before this Court. The said suits were decreed on 24.04.2008 and thereafter, sale deeds came to be executed by the 1st Assistant Registrar of this Court on 24.01.2013 pursuant to an order passed in Execution Petition Nos.2794 and 2795 of 2009. When the said sale deeds were sought to be registered, the Sub Registrar took a view that the valuation as on the date of presentation of the document for registration should be taken into account for payment of Stamp duty and thus referred the matter under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent thereafter commenced to proceed under Section 47-A by issuing a Form 1 notice on 09.12.2013. After following the procedure prescribed under the Rules by issuing a Form 2 notice and provisional order, the 2nd respondent passed final orders on 13.06.2014, fixing the value of the property at Rs.1,600/- per sq.feet and demanding a deficit stamp duty of Rs.42,34,230/- from the appellant in CMA No.169 of 2016 and deficit stamp duty of Rs.39,96,720/- from the appellant in CMA No.168 of 2016.
4. Aggrieved by the above fixation of the value of the properties and demand of deficit stamp duty, the appellants filed appeals before the 1st respondent under Section 47-A(5) of the Indian Stamp Act. The 1st respondent dismissed the appeals by an order dated 15.10.2015, thereby confirming the fix
