KUPPUSWAMI PILLAI Vs. SUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is directed against the order of the learned subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai in E. P. No. 30/88 dated 4-5-1990, directing the petitioner to pay the stamp duty for the present market value of the suit property in the above said E. P.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention that stamp duty has to be paid only for the value mentioned in the agreement and not for the market value of the property on the date when the decree is sought to be executed, drew the attention of this court to the decision of this court in C. R. P. No. 942 of 1987 (D. Jayaraman v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Balem) dated 6-11-1990. The said decision applies to the present case. Accordingly, the order of the trial Court in E. P. 30 of 1988 in O. S. 77 of 1985 is set aside and the lower court is directed to execute the decree as per the value given in the agreement of sale. The civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. This petition having been posted on Tuesday the 11th day of January 1994 for being mentioned in the presence of Mr. T. R. Rajaraman, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr. V. Raghavachari, Advocate for the respondents the court made the following order: This matter is posted again before me for being mentioned at the instance of the learned counsel for the respondents. 2A. Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel for the respondents brought to my notice the decision in the case of Padmavathi, S. P. v. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in 1993 W.L.R. 470, where the learned Judge (Bakthavatsalam, J.) has observed as follows :

(3.) Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act as amended by the Tamil Nadu Act reads as follows: