SUSEELA NAIR Vs. SUB REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is challenging Ext. P8 series of three demand notices issued by the 2nd respondent demanding difference in stamp duty in respect of three items of property purchased by the petitioner vide Exts. P1 to P4.

(2.) Petitioner has produced Ext. P1 order of the District Court approving sale of the entire property that was purchased by the petitioner at the declared price as the sale was on behalf of the minor which required clearance from the court. It is seen from Ext. P1 order of the District Court that simultanously the guardian of the minor re-invested the sale proceeds in the purchase of another item of property which is also approved by the court by the very same order. Counsel for petitioner contended that when the market value of the property sold by the seller is approved by the District Court, though not under the Stamp Act, the same will bind the 2nd respondent.

(3.) Government Pleader, on the other hand, contended that Ext.P1 should be looked into with reference to the purpose for which the order was issued, i.e., to protect the interests of the minor. According to him, propriety of the sale deed was considered by the District Court with reference to the purchase being made on behalf of the minor. In other words, if the acquisition on behalf of the minor is for the same value of the property sold, then the minor's interest is protected and the Court is always free to approve the transaction under the Guardian and Wards' Act. I feel, this argument of the Government Pleader is sustainable because approval by the District Court for sale of the property at a price does not mean that the sale is not below the market value, as the Court has not considered the market value. What weighs with the Court in granting approval for the sale of the property of the minor is whether it protects the interests of the minor or not. When there is simultaneous acquisition of property which is equally or more advantageous to the minor, the Court is always free to approve the sale of the property of the minor. In other words, if there is balanced under-valuation in both sale and purchase, the minor's interest stands protected, but there will be evasion of stamp duty in both the transactions. Therefore, the argument that Ext. P1 order of the District Court issued under Guardian and Wards' Act is conclusive evidence of sale at market value and Registrar cannot initiate proceedings for undervaluation is unacceptable. However, the court order is a strong evidence and gives rise to a presumption of a valid transaction which the Registrar is bound to consider while considering whether there is evasion of stamp duty in respect of the sale. In fact the Registrar is bound to consider the issue with reference to corresponding purchase deed also which is the basis for the District Court to approve the sale at the declared price.