LexSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. versus MANOJ KUMAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 175
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
v.
MANOJ KUMAR
(Civil Appeal No. 2226 of 2010)
MARCH 9, 2010
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950:
Article 227 - Jurisdiction under - Sale deed executed
pursuant to decree passed in a suit for specific performance
A
B
c
of contract - Report of Joint Sub-Registrar that property was
under-valued - Finding of fact recorded by District Collector
and upheld by Commissioner that suit for specific 0
performance of contract was filed to evade substantial stamp
duty, set aside by High Court - HELD: High Court, under its
limited jurisdiction under Article 227, erred in interfering with
concurrent finding of fact of authorities below - Observations
made by High Court that the authenticity of the decree passed E
by civil court could not be questioned and genuineness of
sale deed was to be presumed, cannot be sustained -
Judgment of High Court set aside - Vendee directed to pay
differential stamp duty - Transfer of property - Circle rates -
Registration of sale deed in pursuance of decree passed by
court - Liability to pay differential stamp duty, if property found
F
to have been under-valued in the suit.
Transfer of property - Sale deed - Registration of -
Circle rate/Collector rate - HELD: In order to ensure that there
is no evasion of stamp duty, issuance of notification fixing
G
circle rates or collector rates has become imperative.
Pursuant to a decree passed in a suit for specific
performance of contract, a sale deed for a commercial
plot admeasuring 788 sq. yards was registered in favour
175
H
176
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 3 S.C.R.
A of the plaintiff-respondent for a sale consideration of
Rs.2,00,000/-. The registration charges paid were
Rs.31,000/-. On the report of the Joint Sub-Registrar that
the property was under-valued inasmuch as the circle
rate/Collector rate of the property being Rs.4200/- per sq.
B yard, the value of the property worked out to be
Rs.33,09,600/-
liable to registration charges of
Rs.5, 13,050/-, the District Collector directed the
respondent to pay the differential stamp duty amounting
to Rs. 4,82,050/- . In the appeal filed by the respondent
c before the Commissioner, the stand of the Revenue was
that the agreement of sale was executed on 10.11.1999
with the entire sale consideration having been paid and
possession of the plot delivered, but the sale deed was
not executed till 9.2.2001 .. Rather, a suit for specific
0
performance of agreement was filed on 14.9;2000 without
impleading the appellants and the same was promptly
decreed on 9.2.2001. Thus, the suit was filed only with the
purpose to evade the substantial stamp duty. The
Commissioner upheld the order of the District Collector.
But the High Court in the writ petition filed by the
E respondent under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
set aside the orders of both the authorities below.
Aggrieved, the State Government filed the appeal.
F
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The Supreme Court over 50 years has been
consistently observing that limited jurisdiction of the
High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
cannot be exercised by interfering with the findings of
G fact and setting aside the judgments of the courts below
on merits. The High Court, in the impugned judgment,
has erred in interfering with the concurrent findings of
fact of the authorities below under its limited jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution. [Para 29 and 35)
H (185-G; 187-E]
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. MANOJ KUMAR
177
Nagendra Nath Bora and Another v. Commissioner of A
Hills Division and Appeals, Assam & Others 1958
SCR 1240=AIR 1958 SC 398; Nibaran Chandra Bag v.
Mahendra Nath Ghughu 1963 Suppl. SCR 570 = AIR 1963
SC 1895; Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim & Others 1984
(1) SCR 211 = (1983) 4 SCC 566; Laxmikant Revchand
B
Bhojwani & Another v. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi
(1995) 6 SCC 576; Rena Drego (Mrs.) v. Lalchand Soni &
Others 1998 (2) SCR 197 =(1998) 3 SCC 341; Virendra
Kashinath Ravat & Another v. \{inayak N. Joshi & Others
1998 (2) Suppl. SCR 643 = (1999) 1 sec 47, relied on.
c
2.1. The High Court erroneously observed that "the
authenticity of the decree passed by the court cannot be
questioned. Therefore, the genuineness of the sale price
has to be presumed." This finding of the High Court
cannot be sustained. It would have far reaching
D Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.