ADDL.DISTT.SUB-REGISTRAR SILIGURI versus PAWAN KUMAR VERMA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2013] 3 S.C.R. 163 · Decided: 01-05-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 3 S.C.R. 163 
ADDL.DISTT.SUB-REGISTRAR SILIGURI 
V. 
PAWAN KUMAR VERMA AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 4167 of 2013) 
MAY 1, 2013 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] 
STAMP ACT, 1899: 
A 
B 
, 
s.2(168) read with s.47-A - 'Market value' - Registration c 
on orders of court - Stamp duty - Held: The scheme for 
valuation for the purpose of registration would show that an 
instrument has to be valued in terms of market value at the 
time of execution of document --
Market value for the 
·purpose of Stamp Act is not same as suit valuation for the 
D 
purpose of jurisdiction and court fees - Where registering 
authority has any difference of opinion as to assessment on 
stamp duty of instrument presented for registration on orders 
of court, it will only be appropriate that Registrar makes a 
back reference to court concerned and court undertakes a 
E 
fresh exercise after affording an opportunity of hearing to 
registering authority with regard to proper value of instrument 
for registration -
Registering authority cannot be compelled 
to follow invariably the value fixed by court for the purpose of 
suit valuation - Orders of courts below are set aside - Trial 
court shall consider the matter afresh after affording an 
F 
opportunity hearing to appellant and pass appropriate orders 
with regard to stamp duty for the purpose of registration of 
·partition deed - Suits Valuation Act, 1887 - Registration Act, 
1908 - West Bengal Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of· 
Instruments) Rules, 2001-- r.3. 
G 
In a partition suit, the trial court directed the appellant 
- Additional District Sub-Registrar, who was not a party 
before the court, to complete the registration on the basis 
163 
H 
164 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 3 S.C.R. 
A of the stamps duty as per the suit valuation. When the 
decree was presented for registration, the appellant 
observed that there was no proper valuation for the 
purpose of registration. The plaintiff approached the trial 
court which held that once the value was fixed by the 
B court, Registrar could not make an attempt to reassess 
the same. The appeal filed by the Registrar was dismissed 
by the High Court. 
In the instant appeal, the question for consideration 
C before the Court was 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. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 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. Market value for the purpose of Stamp 
E 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 
F Government' appearing In r. 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. 
G 
H 
[para 9 and 14] [171-E-F; 173-C-E] 
1.2 Once the court has made the exercise to fix tho 
market value of a property, the same can be reopened or 
altered only In a process known to law. That Is not the 
situation In the Instant case where a partition suit was 
ADDL.DISTI.SUB-REGISTRAR SILIGURI v. PAWAN 
165 
KUMAR VERMA 
filed in the year 1999, compromised in the year 2001, 
A 
stamp value assessed on the basis of suit valuation and 
the decree presented for registration in the year 2007. 
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 duty accordingly. That B 
does not meet the requirement under law. The trial court 
has, thus, clearly erred in directing the registration to be 
done on the basis of suit valuation. [para 13-14] [173-B-
C, E-F] 
Nitya Hari Kundu and Others vs. State of W.B. and 
Others AIR 2001 Calcutta 76 - Distinguished. 
c 
1.3 The Suits Valuation Act, 1887 and Stamp Act, 1899 
operate in different fields. tiowever, going by the scheme 0 
of the Act and Rules as amended by West Bengal, this 
Court is of the view that where the registering authority 
has any difference of opinion as to assessment on the 
stamp duty of the i

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.