Madras High Court
N.Uday Shankar vs The Special Deputy Collector on 8 March, 2021
C.M.A.No.695 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A.No.695 of 2021
1.N.Uday Shankar
2.Geetha Uday Shankar
Both at No.3, New
Agraharam, Ootacamund,
The Nilgiris – 643 001. ..Appellants
Vs.
1.The Special Deputy Collector,
Stamps, Coimbatore.
2.The Chief Controlling
Revenue Authority and
Inspector General of
Registration, Chennai – 4. ..Respondents
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 47-A (10) of
the Indian Stamps Act, read with Section 104 of the Civil Procedure
Code, against the order of the Learned Chief Controlling Revenue
Authority and Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, dated
29.03.2004 passed in Mu.Mu.No.12210/2/2004, confirming the order of
the Learned Special Deputy Collector of Stamps, Coimbatore dated
29.12.2003 passed in Moo.Pa.No.339/2003.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/4
C.M.A.No.695 of 2021
For Appellants : Mr.S.K.Rakhunathan
For Respondents : Mr.P.P.Purushothaman
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
The order dated 29.12.2003 passed by the Deputy Collector of
Stamps, Coimbatore, is under challenge in the present Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. The appellants raised a ground that the value of the property
fixed by the first respondent as Rs.5,72,025/- for the purpose of stamp
duty and registration is erroneous. As per the appellant, the value of the
sale deed is Rs.4,40,500/- and accordingly, the appropriate stamp duty
has been paid.
3. It is contended that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Stamps
(Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules 1968, has not been
followed. Even the jurisdiction is questioned, no Form-I notice was
issued to the appellants and also no Form-II notice was issued along
with the provisional order as contemplated in Rule 6.
4. Perusal of the order impugned, reveals that the value of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.695 of 2021
property was assessed as Rs.5,72,025/- and accordingly, the appellants
are bound to pay the stamp duty of Rs.68,652/-. The appellants had
already paid a sum of Rs.52,860/- and therefore, the first respondent
directed the appellants to pay the balance stamp duty of Rs.13,442/-
within a period of two weeks.
5. The said order was passed in the year 2004. The appeal was
filed in the year 2004 itself. However, it has been numbered in the year
2021, after a lapse of about 17 years. In view of the fact that the
appellant has not even perused the appeal for about 17 years and further,
the fact remains that the appellant had not established the valuation
mentioned by him in his document. In the absence of any such proof,
valuation of the property made by the 1st respondent is to be taken into
consideration for stamp duty and registration.
6. In the present case, the appellants could not able to establish a
case for lesser market value of the property registered and therefore, this
Court is not inclined to consider the grounds as raised in the appeal.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.695 of 2021
kak
7. Accordingly, the order dated 29.12.2003 passed by the Deputy
Collector of Stamps, Coimbatore, stands confirmed and the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.695 of 2021 is dismissed. No costs.
08.03.2021
kak
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order
To
1. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority
and Inspector General of Registration,
Chennai.
2.The Special Deputy Collector of Stamps,
Coimbatore.
C.M.A.No.695 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
