P BABU Vs. CHIEF REVENUE CONTROLLING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed against the orders of the first respondent, Chief Revenue Controlling Officer-cum-Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, thereby fixing the higher value of the property than what was mentioned in the documents registered on 5.9.2002 and 2.9.2002.

(2.) The subject matter of the present CMAs are the sale deeds registered as Doc.Nos.487/2002 dated 5.9.2002 and 488/2002 dated 2.9.2002 respectively. While Doc.No.487/2002 is in respect of vacant site measuring 852.24 sq.m in natham patta, S.No.42/2-A, Sakkarapuram village, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District, Doc.no.488/2002 is in respect of both land and building measuring 1.261.79 sq.m and 1/4th share in the well comprised in Sakkarapuram Village, natham patta S.No.41/2A. The market value of entire property covered in both the sale deeds are Rs.1,20,000/- and Rs.1,30,000/- respectively. The third respondent Joint Sub Registrar, Tindivanam, on receipt of the documents, registered the same as Doc Nos.487 and 488/2002, but refused to release the documents by valuing the property covered under Doc No.487/2000 at Rs.498/- per sq.ft and other property covered in Doc No.488/2002 at Rs.95/- per sq.ft. The third respondent, having refused to release the documents on the ground that it was undervalued, referred the same to the second respondent Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Cuddalore under section 47(A)(1) of the Act for determining the correct market value of the property and also issued notice in Form I, thereby fixing the value of the property in Doc.No.487/2002 at Rs.45,66,660/- and the other property in Doc.No.488/2002 at Rs.12,94,900/-. Thereafter, the second respondent also issued Form II notice to the parties to the documents for enquiry before him. The appellant, who is the purchaser of the property filed his objections. After enquiry, the second respondent Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) in his proceedings dated 12.10.2004 fixed the market value of the property covered under Doc no.487/2002 at Rs.51,16,565 @ Rs.51,16,600/- (Rs.400/- per sq.ft for 9170/- sq.ft + building at Rs.14,48,565/-) and fixed the market value of the property covered under Doc.no.488/2002 at Rs.10,36,937/- @ Rs.10,37,000/- (Rs.76/- per sq.ft for 13,577 sq.ft + Well and laying stone at Rs.5,085/-) and accordingly demanded deficit stamp duty payable for the documents. Aggrieved against the same, the purchaser who is the appellant herein, preferred further appeals before the first respondent Inspector General of Registration, who by the impugned orders dated 27.01.2009, determined the value of the property covered in Doc No.487/2002 at Rs.498/- per sq.ft for land and the property covered in Doc No.488/2002 at Rs.95/- per sq.ft. for land and Rs.15,96,999/- for building. Aggrieved against the same, these two civil miscellaneous appeals before this court by the purchaser of the property.

(3.) The appellant herein has questioned the correctness of the impugned orders passed by the first respondent by contending that the property in question was purchased by one Veeraswamy Nainar who was the appellant's grandfather as early as on 24.10.1946 from the original owner by name Jeevarathinam Ammal, who was the mother of the appellant's vendor and thereafter, the property was divided between the appellant's father and his brother Varadha Nainar by way of partition deed dated 31.03.1962 and there was further partition between the appellant's father and his sons i.e., the appellant and his brothers on 31.8.1970. Since then, the appellant has been in possession and enjoyment of the property by paying property tax and electricity consumption charges and by letting it out to third party and enjoying the income derived by the same. After Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Jeevarathinam Ammal became the absolute owner of the property and her legal heirs executed two sale deeds in favour of the appellant for the purpose of transfer of title alone and as the possession was already handed over, there was no transfer of possession under the present sale deeds bearing Doc Nos.487 and 488/2002 and the documents in question are only nominal sale deeds without actual transfer of any property, as such, no stamp duty is payable on such documents and the question of determining the correct market value and to pay additional/deficit stamp duty does not arise herein.