R THIAGASUNDARAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner presented certain documents of sale for registration valuing the property at a particular rate. The Registering Authority having regard to the provisions of S. 47A of Indian Stamp Act has referred to the Collector the question of determining the market value of the property and whether the proper stamp duty has been paid on the instrument. It is at this stage, the present writ petition has been filed praying a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the proceedings of the Registering Officer dated 14-6-1990 by referring the matter regarding the market value under S. 47A of the Stamp Act to the Collector.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the property certain minors have a share and in order to obtain permission from the City Civil Court for selling the share of the minors, O.P. No. 38 of 1990 was filed in the City Civil Court, Madras indicating the value of the property as recited now in the instrument presented for registration. The City Civil Court having regard to the averments made by the mother passed orders on 21-3-1990 granting permission inter alia observing that the property is being sold for a fair and proper price and that it would be for the benefit of the minors to sell the share. On the basis of the orders in O.P. No. 38 of 1990, it is contended that since the City Civil Court has accepted the value as recited in the instrument as a fair value, the Registering Authority has no justification not to accept the said value and make a reference to the Collector for a fresh valuation. It is secondly contended that in any event if the Collector renders a finding regarding the market value of the property and demands additional stamp duty, an appeal lies to the City Civil Court, Madras, against the orders of the Collector and since the City Civil Court has already found that the value as given in the instrument is a correct value, no useful purpose would be served by the Registering Authority by referring the matter to the Collector.

(3.) It would have been a different matter if the State was a party in O.P. No. 38 of 1990, but it was not. Therefore, an order obtained behind the back of the State in O. P. No. 38 of 1990 as regards the market value of the property may not be binding on the State. However, it may be a circumstance which the Registering Authority has certainly to take into consideration while determining the market value of the property. For that matter, the reference made by the Registering Authority under S. 47A of the Stamp Act cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or illegal. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the Collector will pass orders on the reference made to him expeditiously after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to state his case. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.