Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iii) V.N.Devadoss v. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Inspector and others [(2009) 7SCC 438];

(iv) M.Sudakar v. V.Manoharan and others [(2011) 1 SCC 484];

(v) S.Manonmani v. The District Revenue Officer (Stamps), Coimbatore [2011 SCC OnLine Mad 1294 : (2011) 3 MWN (Civil) 483]

(vi) R.Jayanthi v. Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) [2014 SCC OnLine Mad 9452].

13. Mr.S.Kaushik Ramasamy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.4060 of 2023 made his submissions in the line of the submissions made by Mr.M.S.Krishnan, senior counsel.

33. In the case of V.N.Devadoss v. Chief Revenue Control Officer- cum-Inspector [(2009) 7 SCC 438], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

“13. 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. Therefore, the basis for exercise of power under Section 47-A of the Act is wilful undervaluation of the subject of transfer with fraudulent intention to evade payment of proper stamp duty.”