ADDL. DISTT. SUB-REGISTRAR SILIGURI vs. PAWAN KUMAR VERMA .

REPORTABLE 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 JUDGMENT 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 st suit filed by the 1 Respondent herein before the Civil 1 Page 1 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) JUDGMENT 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 2 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. 1 and others , 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:

1 AIR 2001 Calcutta 76 3 Page 3 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: -

(b) conveyance, (c) exchange of property, JUDGMENT (d) gift, (e) partition, (f) power-of-attorney-

(g) settlement, 4 Page 4 (h) transfer of lease by way of assignment,

(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 5

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 6

(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 JUDGMENT 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 7 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: JUDGMENT “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 8

JUDGMENT 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 9 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 JUDGMENT 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 th assessment of stamp duty on 1/4 share of the suit property as per the compromise and fixed the stamp 10 Page 10 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 JUDGMENT 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 11 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) JUDGMENT New Delhi; May 1, 2013. 12 Page 12