Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Insofar as the grounds raised by the petitioner is concerned, the issue has already been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in 2009 (3) LW 236 in the case of V.N.Devadoss vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Ins. and others. Following the said decision, a learned brother Judge of this Court had reiterated the proposition in the decision reported in 2017 (5) CTC 173 in the case of G.Mary Chellathai http://www.judis.nic.invs. Tamil Nadu Inspector General of Registration & Principal Revenue Authority and others. In the decision, the learned Judge of this Court had held that the essential requirement to make a reference under Section 47-A would be after satisfaction that there was a willful under valuation by the authority with a fraudulent intention to evade payment of stamp duty. In the same decision, the learned Judge has also dealt with the scope of Rule 7(1) of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, and held that the Rule mandates for a period of 3 months for completion of proceedings and failure to complete the proceedings within the time period, will vitiate the entire proceedings. The relevant observations of the learned Judge is as follows:

“9. The facts are not in dispute. The agreements in question are dated 06.05.1997 and 08.05.1997 respectively. The appellants were also put in possession of the properties agreed to be purchased by them on 09.05.1997 and 10.05.1997. It is seen from the agreements that a substantial part of the consideration was paid even at the time of the entering into the agreements or within a short span of time thereafter. It is not in dispute that the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai, granted orders of injunction restraining the agreement-vendor from alienating the properties on 13.05.1997. The orders of injunction were vacated by the Debt Recovery Tribunal only on 30.01.2004. The said orders were appealed against by the Bank and the appeals came to http://www.judis.nic.in be dismissed on 10.12.2004. The appellants were forced to institute suits for specific performance of the agreement in CS.Nos.40 and 41 of 2006 before this Court which came to be decreed on 24.04.2008. Justifying the saying that the troubles of a decree holder starts only after the decree, the Execution proceedings which were launched in 2009, ended in an execution of sale deeds on 24.01.2013. The sale deeds were presented for registration and the Sub-Registrar promptly referred the matters under Section 47-A. In this background, it has to be tested as to whether it could be said that there was willful under-valuation of the property with an intention to avoid Stamp duty on the part of the appellants. In V.N.Devadoss v. Chief Revenue Control Officer-