ADDL. DISTRICT SUB-REGISTRAR SILIGURI V. PAWAN KUMAR VERMA & OTHERS J. (G.S. SINGHVI) AND J. (KURIAN JOSEPH) 2013 (7) SCC 537
FACT
The petitioner was aggrieved by an order of the High Court of Calcutta, which upheld an order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Siliguri.
The dispute arose from a partition suit filed by the 1st respondent before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Siliguri.
The Trial Court directed the petitioner to complete the registration based on the stamp duty as per the suit valuation.
The suit was valued at Rs. 50 lakhs for the purpose of suit valuation.
The suit was ultimately decreed on compromise, with the parties directed to file Stamp Papers as assessed by the Sheristadar.
When the decree was presented for registration, objections were raised regarding the assessment of market value for registration purposes.
The plaintiff took up the matter before the Civil Judge, 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 others[1], the High Court dismissed the petition and, hence, the Special Leave Petition.
ISSUE
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.
RULE
The registering authority under the Registration Act, 1908 is not bound by the assessment of stamp duty made by the court as per suit valuation. Instead, the registering authority must independently assess the market value for stamp duty purposes, ensuring accurate levies.
HELD
The court analyzed the relevant statutory provisions, including the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and the West Bengal Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 2001.
It noted that the procedures for assessment of stamp duty and registration of an instrument are different.
The court emphasized the disparity between market value, used for determining stamp duty, and suit valuation, employed for jurisdictional purposes. While market value reflects the property's worth for stamp duty assessment, suit valuation dictates jurisdiction and court fees.
The court ruled that registering authorities must independently assess the market value, not automatically follow suit valuation, ensuring accurate stamp duty levies.
In Nitya Hari Kundu's case, the court had fixed the market value of the property in that case for permitting the Trust estate to put it for 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.
The court held that the registering authority cannot be compelled to follow the value fixed by the court for the purpose of suit valuation.
The court observed that the learned Civil Judge and the High Court only referred to the headnote in Nitya Hari Kundu's case (supra).
It set aside the orders of the High Court and the Civil Judge, directing the latter to reconsider the matter after affording an opportunity for hearing to the petitioner.
The Civil Judge was instructed to pass appropriate orders regarding the stamp duty for the purpose of registration of the partition deed within three months.