FIXATION OF STAMP DUTY BY SUB-REGISTRAR ON A SALE DEED WITH OUT BASIC REGISTER VALUATION AND ON IMAGINARY LINE NOT VALID = The subject document viz., sale deed Ex.A-1 presented for registration is executed on 18-04-1994. The petitioners have not produced any document to show that in the year 1994 the market value was Rs.1,500/- per square yard. They have also not filed the basic value register showing any such market value in the locality concerned. Simply because some crucial buildings were in existence in the vicinity, the market value cannot be enhanced to Rs.1,500/- per square yard basing on the documents which came into existence much subsequent to the date of execution of Ex.A-1 sale deed. The reliance placed on such documents which were executed long subsequent to the date of the said sale deed Ex.A-2, is rather misplaced. Going by the market value obtaining in the year 1993 and having regard to the fact that the market value was on increase year after year, the learned appellate Court has rightly enhanced the market value from Rs.700/- to Rs.1,000/- per square yard and appropriately fixed the same at Rs.1,000/- per square yard. 5. There are no valid or justifiable grounds to interfere with the said fixation of market value by the appellate Court. The impugned order does not call for any interference.

PUBLISHED IN http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=CRP&mno=6029&year=2002
CRP 6029 / 2002

CRPSR 30444 / 2002
 
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
DIST. REGISTRAR OF ASSURANCE & ANR  VSKOTRA RAMASESHU
PET.ADV. : GP FOR ARBITRATIONRESP.ADV. : RAO
SUBJECT: INSOLVENCYDISTRICT:  KHAMMAM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

PRESENT::
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY
C.R.P.No.6029 OF 2002
Between:-
The District Registrar of Assurance, Khammam
and another
…Petitioners
A n d

Kotra Ramaseshu
…Respondent

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY
C.R.P.No.6029 OF 2002
ORDER:
          The civil revision petition is directed against order dated
24-12-2001 in
C.M.A.No.2 of 1998, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, wherein the said appeal filed by the respondent herein was allowed-in-part, fixing the market value at Rs.1,000/- per square yard.

2.       Heard the learned Government Pleader for the petitioners.  None appeared for the respondent.  Perused the record.

3.       The respondent herein purchased 100 square yards of house site situate in Harkara well road, Khammam for Rs.70,000/- and the sale deed was drafted on a stamp paper worth Rs.7,700/- and it
was presented for registration before the second appellant
The registration of the document was kept pending and the market value was fixed at Rs.1,500/- per square yard and the respondent was directed to pay the remaining stamp duty of Rs.8,800/- and registration fee of Rs.400/-.  
The second petitioner herein referred the matter to the first petitioner.  
The first petitioner, after making local inspection, confirmed the market value at Rs.1,500/- as fixed by the second petitioner. 
Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred appeal in C.M.A.No.2 of 1998.  The learned Senior Civil Judge, Khammam allowed the appeal in part, fixing the market value at Rs.1,000/- per square yard.  
Not satisfied with same, the Government preferred the present civil revision petition. 

4.       It is not disputed that the property purchased under Ex.A-1 sale deed is 100 square yards situate in Khammam town.  
According to
the respondent, the market value of the similarly situate property in 1993-94 was only Rs.700/- per square yard.  
The petitioners herein fixed the market value at Rs.1,500/- per square yard basing on the copies of the sale deeds Exs.B-2 to B-6.  
No other material was placed by the petitioners to show that the market value of the property at the relevant time was Rs.1,500/- per square yard.  
As rightly observed by the appellate Court, the material placed on record showed that the market value was Rs.700/- per square yard in the year 1993 and it got increased to Rs.1,500/- in 1995.  
The subject document viz., sale deed Ex.A-1 presented for registration is executed on 18-04-1994.  
The petitioners have not produced any document to show that in the year 1994 the market value was Rs.1,500/- per square yard.  
They have also not filed the basic value register showing any such market value in the locality concerned.  
Simply because some crucial buildings were in existence in the vicinity, the market value cannot be enhanced to Rs.1,500/- per square yard basing on the documents which came into existence much subsequent to the date of execution of Ex.A-1 sale deed.  
The reliance placed on such documents which were executed long subsequent to the date of the said sale deed Ex.A-2, is rather misplaced. 
 Going by the market value obtaining in the year 1993 and having regard to the fact that the market value was on increase year after year, the learned appellate Court has rightly enhanced the market value from Rs.700/- to Rs.1,000/- per square yard and appropriately fixed the same at Rs.1,000/- per square yard. 

5.       There are no valid or justifiable grounds to interfere with the said fixation of market value by the appellate Court.  The impugned order does not call for any interference.

6.       In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________
                                      G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J
24th February, 2011
Lrkm

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.