Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7.The plain reading of the relevant provisions of law would support such stand taken by the learned counsel for the appellant. The same stand is also fortified by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the three judges Full Bench and Division Bench of our High Court in the judgments reported in (i)(2009) 7 SCC 438 V.N.Devadoss v. Chief Revenue Control officer-cum-Inspector General of Registration and others (ii)2007 (5) CTC 737 Full Bench  G.Karmegam and others V. The Joint Sub Registrar, IV, Madurai (iii)(2001) 2 MLJ 458  The District Collector, Erode District, Erode and others V. M.Ponnusamy and unreported single judge judgments in CMA.No.1415 of 2004 dated 24.04.2009 and CMA.No.1863 of 2004 dated 04.03.2010.

8.In all the cases cited above, the Hon'ble Apex Court and our High Court have clearly laid down that the registration of document precedes reference to Collector and the Registrar cannot refuse registration even if document is undervalued and the Registering Officer cannot conduct roving enquiry to form an opinion on undervaluation but has to give reasons for his conclusions on undervaluation.

9.The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the judgment cited above (2009) 7 SCC 438 V.N.Devadoss v. Chief Revenue Control officer-cum-Inspector General of Registration and others has after extracting the relevant provisions of law observed that Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 47-A clearly reveal the intention of the legislature that there must be a reason to believe that the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of the conveyance has not been truly set out in the instrument. It is not a routine procedure to be followed in respect of each and every document of conveyance presented for registration without any evidence to show lack of bona fides of the parties to the document by attempting fraudulently to undervalue the subject of conveyance with a view to evade payment of proper stamp duty and thereby cause loss to the revenue.