N BALASUBRAMANIAM Vs. V NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in R. E. P. No. 86/2005 on the file of the principal District Court, Nammakkal , which was filed under Order 21 Rule 34 of C. P. C, is the revision petitioner herein. THE said EP was filed to execute the Decree passed in O. S. No. 325/2004 dated 28. 12. 2004 on the file of the Principal District Court, Nammakkal. THE Executing Court has directed the revision petitioner to file non judicial stamp papers on the basis of the guideline value of the Executing Court that was prevailing on the date of agreement of sale on or before 8. 8. 2005. Aggrieved by the said order, the Decree holder has preferred this Civil Revision Petition on the ground that non judicial stamp papers to the value for engrossing the sale deed as mentioned in the sale agreement alone is to be deposited by him and not the guideline value for the property which was prevailing on the date of sale agreement for the suit property.

(2.) IN support of his contention, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on a judgment of Division Bench of this Court reported in 1997 (2) LW 579 ( S. P. Padmavathi Vs. State of Tamilnadu etc ). IN that case, while deciding the powers of the Sdb -Registrar under Section 47- A (3) of INdian Stamp Act (as amended in Tamil Nadu ), it was held that Sub-Registrar cannot direct the parties to file stamp papers on the value that was prevailing on the date of execution of the instrument, but he can only direct the parties to file the stamp papers on the basis of the value which was prevailing on the date of execution of the agreement of the sale deed. The exact observation of the dictum is as follows : "therefore, we are of the view that in the case of instrument of conveyance executed pursuant to the Decree for specific performance passed by the Civil Court, in which there is no allegation of undervaluation or lack of bona fides, the mere fact that there is a time gap between the agreement of sale and the execution of the document, is not sufficient to the Registering Officer to invoke his power under Section 47-A of the Act, unless there are reasons to believe that there is an attempt on the part of the parties to the instrument to deliberately undervalue the subject of transfer with a view to evade payment of proper stamp duty. &quot ; Here the question of deliberately undervaluing the subject of transfer does not arise because the Decree O. S. No. 325/2004 is an exparte Decree, wherein the Executing Court had passed an erroneous order, which warrants the interference from this Court.