Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

From the above observations it can be readily seen that the purchaser is presuming yield of 6 per cent from the property in question in perpetuity. From Parks' table given at page 296 (4th edition) this position becomes immdiately clear (see foot of column 2 read with column 1).

33. In the case of Smt. Ashima Shina's case (supra) the net annual return of the property was Rs, 6,493. The Tribunal multiplied this annual income with the multiple of 12½ and then deducted from the product 10 per cent of such product on account of undivided ½ share of the assessee. The value worked out in the aforesaid manner came to Rs. 73,046 approximately (Rs. 6,493 multiplied by 12½ minus 10 per cent of the product) which was less than the actual sale price of Rs. 80,000 recorded in the instrument of transfer. The aforesaid multiple of 12 times implied that the expected yield from the property was 8 per cent of the capital invested and that this yield would be forthcoming in perpetuity (see Parks' table of years' purchase at page 296, 4th edition). The above value was upheld by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court to be correct. Apparently there would be no question of reversionary value of land if the building erected thereon would last in perpetuity and if by the erection of this building the land has been fully developed (the above was the finding of the Hon'ble High Court as seen above).

34. The same would, however, not be the position if the life of a building was limited to a few years only, say 10 years and after that the said building would be uninhabitable and would cease to yield any rent whatsoever. In such case it would be against facts to presume that the rent of the building would nevertheless be maintained in perpetuity. The valuation of such a building will have to proceed on the footing that the yield from the building would be for 10 years only and that after that the rent will stop and the building will be valueless except for its old materials and that the land along would be left in the possession of the owner which he would be able to develop in the manner he deemed best. The land would apparently have some value 10 years after. The value of the land to the owner on its reversion 10 years, hence, would be the reversionary value of the land. Its present value has to be determined by applying Parks' table appearing at pages 299 to 302 of his book 4th edition. Simultaneously the present value of the rent that would be received by the landlord for the period of 10 years would have to be found out by applying the Parks' table given at page 295. At 8 per cent yield for 10 years the multiple to be applied according to this table to the net rent would be 6.710 (and not 12½) the sum total of the two figures described above would be the value of the property in question.