Page 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO._4167_/2013 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 22263/2011]

ADDL. DISTT. SUB-REGISTRAR SILIGURI … PETITIONER   

VERSUS

PAWAN KUMAR VERMA AND OTHERS … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T  

KURIAN, J.:   

Leave granted.    

2. While registering an instrument of partition, whether  

the registering authority under the Registration Act,  

1908  is  bound  by  the  assessment  of  stamp  duty  

made  by  the  court  as  per  suit  valuation,  is  the  

question arising for consideration in this case.

3. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 02.09.2010  

of  the High Court  of  Calcutta passed on a petition  

filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed  

by  the  Civil  Judge  (Senior  Division)  at  Siliguri  on  

22.08.2007.  Respondents  are  parties  to  a  partition  

suit filed by the 1st Respondent herein before the Civil  1

REPORTABLE

Page 2

Judge (Senior  Division)  at  Siliguri  in  T.S.  (Partition)  

No.  70  of  1999.  The  Trial  Court  had  directed  the  

petitioner, who was not a party before the court, to  

complete the registration on the basis of the stamp  

duty as per the suit valuation. The suit was valued at  

Rs.50 lakhs for the purpose of suit valuation. During  

the pendency of the suit, dispute was compromised  

and,  accordingly,  Annexure  P3  –  Order  dated  

30.03.2001 was passed ordering:

“that the suit be and the same is decreed in  final  form  on  compromise  in  terms  of  the  joint  compromise  petition  dated 15.11.2000 which  do  form part of the decree. The parties do bear their  respective costs. Parties are directed to file Stamp  Papers as would be assessed by the Sheristadar  for  engrossing  the  Final  Decree  and  for  registration of the same. Sheristadar is directed to  assess  the  amount  of  Stamp  Paper  over  the  valuation of the suit property at once.... ”

(Emphasis supplied)

4. Subsequently, some clerical corrections were carried  

out  in  the  order,  on 12.02.2007.  When the  decree  

was  presented  for  registration,  the  same  was  

objected to by the petitioner observing that there is  

no proper valuation for the purpose of registration.  

Aggrieved, the plaintiff took up the matter before the  

Civil  Judge  (Senior  Division)  at  Siliguri  leading  to  

2

Page 3

Annexure P6- Order. The learned Civil Judge (Senior  

Division) took the view that once the value has been  

fixed by the court, Registrar cannot make an attempt  

to  reassess  the  same.  Aggrieved,  the  Additional  

District  Sub-Registrar,  Siliguri,  approached the High  

Court.  Placing  reliance  on  its  earlier  decision  on  

Nitya Hari Kundu and others  vs.  State of W.B.  

and others1, the High Court dismissed the petition  

and, hence, the Special Leave Petition.

5. In order to analyse disputes in proper perspective, it  

is  necessary  to  refer  to  the  statutory  provisions  

governing  the  issue.  Indian  Stamp  Act,  1899,  as  

amended by the West Bengal,  has defined ‘market  

value’ at Section 2 (16B), which reads as follows:

“(16B)"market  value"  means,  in  relation  to  any  property  which  is  the  subject-matter  of  an  instrument,  the price which such property would  have fetched or would fetch if sold in open market  on  the  date  of  execution  of  such  instrument as  determined in such manner and by such authority  as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act  or  the  consideration  stated  in  the  instrument,  whichever is higher;”

(Emphasis supplied)

1 AIR 2001 Calcutta 76 3

Page 4

6. Section 2(12) of Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as amended  

by the West Bengal, has also defined ‘execution’ with  

reference  to  an  instrument  to  mean  “signed”  and  

“signature”.  

7. Section 47A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as amended  

by the West Bengal, provided for the procedure for  

dealing with undervaluation. To the extent relevant,  

the provision reads as follows: -

“47A.  Instruments of conveyance,  etc.,  under-valued,  how  to  be  dealt  with.-  (1)  Where the registering officer appointed under the  Registration  Act,  1908  (16  of  1908),  has,  while  registering any instrument of-

(a) agreement or memorandum of any agreement  relating to a sale or lease-cum-sale of immovable  property,

(b) conveyance,

(c) exchange of property,

(d) gift,

(e) partition,

(f) power-of-attorney-

(i)  when given for  consideration to sell  any  immovable property, or

(ii) in such other cases referred to in article  48 of Schedule IA,

where proper stamp duty is payable on the  basis of market value,

(g) settlement,

4

Page 5

(h) transfer of lease by way of assignment,

reason  to  believe  that  the  market  value  of  the  property which is the subject-matter of any such  instrument  has  not  been  truly  set  forth  in  the  instrument  presented  for  registration,  he  may,  after  receiving  such  instrument,  ascertain  the  market value of the property which is the subject- matter  of  such  instrument  in  the  manner  prescribed  and  compute  the  proper  stamp  duty  chargeable  on  the  market  value so  ascertained  and thereafter he shall, notwithstanding anything  to the contrary contained in the Registration Act,  1908, in so far as it relates to registration, keep  registration of such instrument in abeyance till the  condition  referred  to  in  sub-section  (2)  or  sub- section (7), as the case may be, is fulfilled by the  concerned person.

(2) Where the market value of the property which  is  the subject-matter of an instrument has been  ascertained  and  the  proper  duty  chargeable  thereon has been computed under sub-section (1),  the  registering  officer  shall,  in  the  manner  prescribed, send to the concerned person a notice  calling upon him to make payment of the deficit  amount of stamp duty within such time as may be  prescribed, and if such person makes payment of  such  deficit  amount  of  stamp  duty  in  the  prescribed  manner,  the  registering  officer  shall  register the instrument.

(3)  Where the concerned person does not  make  payment of the stamp duty as required under sub- section (2) within the time specified in the notice  issued  under  that  sub-section,  the  registering  authority shall refer the matter to such authority  and  in  such  manner  as  may  be  prescribed  for  determination of the market value of the property  which is the subject-matter of such instrument and  the proper stamp duty payable thereon:

(4) to (7) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx  

(8) (a) The authority referred to in sub-section (3)  may, on receipt of any information or otherwise,  

5

Page 6

suo  motu  within  five  years  from  the  date  of  registration  of  any  instrument,  where  such  instrument  was  registered  on  the  basis  of  the  market value which was set forth in the instrument  or which was ascertained by the registering officer  referred to in sub-section (1), call for and examine  any  such  instrument  and  any  other  document  relating  thereto  for  the  purpose  of  satisfying  himself as to the correctness of the market value  of the property which is the subject-matter of such  instrument  and  which  was  set  forth  in  the  instrument or  which was ascertained under sub- section (2) and the stamp duty payable thereon.

(b)  If,  after  such  examination,  the  authority  referred  to  in  clause (a)  has  reasons  to  believe  that the market value of the property which is the  subject-matter  of  such  instrument  has  not  been  truly  set  forth  in  the  instrument  or  correctly  ascertained under sub-section (2),  he may, after  giving the parties concerned in the instrument a  reasonable opportunity of being heard, determine  the  market  value  of  the  property  which  is  the  subject-matter of such instrument and the amount  of stamp duty chargeable thereon in the manner  referred to in sub-section (5), and the difference in  the  amount  of  stamp duty,  if  any,  between  the  stamp duty so determined by him and the stamp  duty already paid by the concerned person shall  be required to be paid by him in the prescribed  manner :”

(Emphasis supplied)

8. Rule  3  of  The  West  Bengal  Stamp  (Prevention  of  

Undervaluation  of  Instruments)  Rules,  2001  has  

provided for the procedure to be adopted when there  

is  undervaluation.  To  the  extent  relevant,  the  

procedure reads as follows:  

6

Page 7

3. Manner of determination of market value  and furnishing of particulars relating to any  property.—  (1)  The  market  value within  the  meaning of clause [16(B)] of section 2 in relation  to any land or any land with building shall, after  taking into consideration the particulars  referred  to in sub-rule (2),  be determined on the basis of  the highest price for which sale of any land or any  land with building, of similar nature and area and  in the same locality or  in a comparable locality,  has been negotiated and settled  during the five  consecutive  years  immediately  proceeding  the  date of execution of any instrument setting forth  such market value, or  on the basis of any court  decision after hearing the State Government, or on  the basis of information, report or record that may  be  available  from  any  court  or  any  officer  or  authority of the Central Government or the State  Government or any local authority or local body,  or  on  the  basis  of  consideration  stated  in  such  instrument for  such  land  or  land  with  building,  whichever is greater.”

(Emphasis supplied)

9. The  scheme  for  valuation  for  the  purpose  of  

registration would show that an instrument has to be  

valued in terms of the market value at the time of  

execution  of  the  document.  In  the  instant  case,  it  

appears  that  there  was  no  such  valuation  

in  the  Civil  Court.  The  learned  Civil  Judge,  as  per  

annexure  P3-Order  dated  30.03.2001,  directed  the  

Sheristadar to asses the amount of stamp paper for  

the  valuation  of  the  suit  property.  The  suit  was  

instituted  in  the  year  1999.   The  same  was  

compromised  in  the  year  2001.  The  plaintiff  filed  7

Page 8

stamp papers as per valuation of the Sheristadar in  

the suit on 03.08.2004 and the decree was presented  

for  registration  before  the  Additional  Registrar  on  

23.05.2007.  In  view  of  the  objection  raised  with  

regard  to  the  assessment  of  market  value  for  the  

purpose  of  registration,  the  plaintiff  sought  for  

clarification leading to annexure P6-Order.  

10. The High Court has placed reliance on a single bench  

decision in Nitya Hari Kundu’s case (supra). It was  

a case where the court permitted an item of a trust  

property  to  be  sold  after  fixing  the  market  value.  

When the Registrar refused to accept the valuation  

made by the court,  a writ  petition was filed in the  

High Court where it was conceded by the Registrar  

that:

“14.  …it  is  correct  to  say  that  a  Court  decision  permitting a trust estate to sell a trust property for  a  particular  consideration,  must  necessarily  be  accepted as a determination of the market value  of the property in the stamp rules.”

11. However, the High Court also considered the matter  

on  merits  and  finally  held  in  paragraph  13,  which  

reads as follows: -

8

Page 9

“13.  Therefore,  in  interpreting  the  statutes  if  I  make harmonious construction of S. 47A read with  the  Rules  made thereunder,  it  will  be read that  valuation made by the Court cannot be said to be  done not truly set forth and there is any reason to  disbelieve,  otherwise.  If  any authority does so it  will tantamount to exceeding the jurisdiction made  under the law. The authority concerned cannot sit  on appeal over a Court decision unless appeal is  preferred from such order which is absent herein.”

12. It appears that the learned Civil Judge and the High  

Court  only referred to the headnote in Nitya Hari  

Kundu’s              case (supra), which reads as  

follows:

“Stamp Act (2 of 1899), S.47-A-Valuation of duty  under S.47-A- Valuation made by Court and sale  deed sent for Registration S.47A is not applicable-  After determination of value by Court, it cannot be  said that there is reason for Registrar to believe  that valuation is not correctly made – Registrar is  bound by that valuation and has to act upon it.”

13. The court had, in fact, fixed the market value of the  

property in that case for permitting the Trust estate  

to put it to sale. However, without reference to the  

court,  it  appears  that  the  Collector  made  an  

independent  assessment  and  that  was  what  was  

struck down by the court. Once the court had made  

the exercise to fix the market value of a property, the  

same can be reopened or altered only in a process  9

Page 10

known to law. That is not the situation in the instant  

case where a partition suit was filed in the year 1999,  

compromised  in  the  year  2001,  stamp  value  

assessed  on  the  basis  of  suit  valuation  and  the  

decree presented for registration in the year 2007.  

14. Market value for  the purpose of  Indian Stamp Act,  

1899  is  not  the  same  as  suit  valuation  for  the  

purpose of jurisdiction and court fee. The procedures  

are different for assessment of the stamp duty and  

for registration of an instrument. The reference to the  

expression ‘on the basis of any court decision after  

hearing the State Government’ appearing in Rule 3 of  

The  West  Bengal  Stamp  (Prevention  of  

Undervaluation  of  Instruments)  Rules,  2001,  would  

clearly  show  that  the  suit  valuation  cannot  be  

automatically followed for the purpose of registration.  

The  learned  Civil  Judge  has,  thus,  clearly  erred  in  

directing the registration to be done on the basis of  

suit  valuation.  The Sheristadar  made a  mechanical  

assessment of stamp duty on 1/4th share of the suit  

property as per the compromise and fixed the stamp  

10

Page 11

duty  accordingly  for  Rs.12,50,000/-.  That  does  not  

meet the requirement under law.

15. The Suits Valuation Act, 1887 and The Indian Stamp  

Act, 1899 operate in different fields. However, going  

by the scheme of the Act and Rules as amended by  

West Bengal, we are of the view that it will only be  

appropriate  that  in  such  situations  where  the  

registering authority has any difference of opinion as  

to assessment on the stamp duty of the instrument  

presented for registration on the orders of the court,  

it  will  only  be  appropriate  that  Registrar  makes  a  

back reference to the court concerned and the court  

undertakes  a  fresh  exercise  after  affording  an  

opportunity  of  hearing  to  the  registering  authority  

with regard to the proper value of the instrument for  

registration.  The  registering  authority  cannot  be  

compelled to follow invariably the value fixed by the  

court for the purpose of suit valuation.  

16. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated  

02.09.2010 of the High Court of Calcutta and order  

dated 30.03.2001 of the learned Civil Judge, Siliguri  

and  order  dated  27.08.2007  of  Civil  Judge  (Senior  

11

Page 12

Division), Siliguri. The court of the learned Civil Judge  

(Senior  Division),  Siliguri  shall  consider  afresh  the  

matter after affording an opportunity for hearing to  

the  petitioner  and  pass  appropriate  orders  with  

regard  to  the  stamp  duty  for  the  purpose  of  

registration  of  the  partition  deed.  This  exercise  

should be completed within a period of three months  

from  the  date  of  receipt  of  this  order.  Appeal  is  

allowed.  

17. There is no order as to costs.

                                                                                                 …………….…..………… J.

  (G.S. SINGHVI)

                                                            .…….. ……………………J.

   (KURIAN JOSEPH)

New Delhi; May 1, 2013.  

12