SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(P&H) 1661

K.KANNAN
Naveen Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.

JUDGMENT

K. Kannan, J.

1. In a suo motu enquiry undertaken by the Collector under Section 47-A of the Registration Act, the Collector demanded additional stamps as payable by taking the value of the property as per Collector's rates on the date of registration and refusing to allow the date of execution of the agreement of sale as the relevant date for determining the value of the property. The Collector, while rejecting the plea of the petitioner that the value of the property was what was stated in the Sale Deed which was in pursuance of a decree for specific performance, relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and others Versus M/s Khandaka Jain Jewellers-2008(1) Civil Court Cases 259 to hold that the valuation shall be taken only as on date of registration.

2. The learned counsel argues that this Court has consistently taken a view that whenever a decree is obtained for specific performance for sale of an immovable property, the value of the property as stated in the decree alone shall be treated as relevant and the Collector's valuation as on date of registration is not relevant. He would also contend that the market value itself will be calc








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top