MANOJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 8.6.2007 (P-3), passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon-respondent No. 2, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, as well as order dated 6.12.2005 (P-2), passed by the District Collector, Faridabad, whereby order of recovery of stamp duty has been passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for brevity, 'the Act'), in respect of Sale Deed No. 11200, dated 9.2.2001.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 10.11.1999, an agreement to sell was executed by Smt. Manjula Gulati in favour of the petitioner in respect of land measuring 788 Sq. Yards, comprised in Khasra No. 26/22, situated in the revenue estate of Mewla Maharajpur. Entire sale consideration was paid by the petitioner to the vendor and actual possession of the land in question was also delivered. However, the sale deed could not be executed because some dispute has arisen between the parties. The petitioner instituted a civil suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell, dated 10.11.1999, executed by Smt. Manjula Gulati, for sale of property measuring 788 Sq. Yards, for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,95,000/-. The suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, and Reader of the Court was directed to execute the decree and to get the sale deed registered in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the sale deed was registered with the Sub Registrar on 9.2.2001, for a sale consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/-.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the considered view that instant petition deserves to be allowed. In cases where the specific performance of contract in respect of immovable property has been granted, the ostensible sale price given in the transfer deed is to be accepted by the Registering Authority. The authenticity of such sale considerations cannot be doubted firstly, because the Court has accepted that price and has decreed the suit for specific performance. Secondly, there cannot be any opportunity with the vendee to fabricate an agreement of sale for showing the incorrect sale price because litigating parties would not ordinarily reach such an agreement and signed the fabricated document. Thirdly, the authenticity of the decree passed by the Court cannot be questioned. Therefore, the genuineness of the sale price has to be presumed.