Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.32 seconds)
Documents citing Rahim Baker vs Sub-Registrar And Ors. on 7 August, 2001

The State Of Kerala vs Jino Joseph

15. The learned Government Pleader would argue that the word 'value' appearing in Sec.45B is the market value and the District Collector is empowered to go into the question whether the amount set forth in a document for registration is less than the market value or not. Even by stretch of imagination, such a meaning cannot be attributed to the word 'value' made mention of in Section 45B of the Act. There can be no quarrel against the proposition that O.P.(C)No.37 of 2010 13 the registering officer shall always have the power to refer the instrument to the Collector under Section 45B(1) if he has reason to believe that the value or consideration has not been truly set forth in the instrument. This Court in Rahim Baker v Sub Registrar (2001(3) KLT S.N.18, Case No.24) has held that the parties cannot escape from the clutches of this provision. Had it been the legislative intention to see that stamp duty is levied on the market value, the same would have been reflected in Section 45B. If the word 'value' which appears in Section 45B is interpreted to mean as market value, Section 28A of the Act would become redundant. The legislature intended, that for the purpose of imposition of stamp duty, a fair value has to be fixed. That is the reason why Section 28A has been introduced. However, as observed earlier, there may be circumstances where the actual consideration passed would be more than the fair value fixed under Section 28A. In such circumstances the parties shall not be allowed to defraud the State Revenue by showing a lesser value or consideration in the O.P.(C)No.37 of 2010 14 instrument. In order to remedy such situations, powers are given under Section 45B for a reference to the Collector. Section 45B also envisages suo motu action by the Collector. That being the case, the market value of the property cannot have any bearing on the question. The material to determine whether stamp duty levied is proper or not is the consideration which actually passed. So, when a reference is made under Section 45B, the Collector has to decide the true consideration which passed by virtue of the document under consideration and if on such enquiry, it is found that the true consideration which passed is more than what is stated in the document, the District Collector can levy duty. Under no circumstance the District Collector can take into account the market value of the property involved. Only on satisfaction that something more than what was stated as consideration in the document has passed from one party to other is the District Collector justified in directing to pay additional stamp duty. Assessment of stamp duty on the basis of market value is not at all O.P.(C)No.37 of 2010 15 envisaged by the legislature and a direction to pay stamp duty on the market value is incompetent as it is without jurisdiction and is liable to be interfered with.
Kerala High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 7 - A V Pillai - Full Document

Respondents vs Appellant on 18 June, 2009

"15. The learned Government Pleader would argue that the word 'value' appearing in Sec. 45B is the market value and the District Collector is empowered to go into the question whether the amount set forth in a document for registration is less than the market value or not. Even by stretch of imagination, such a meaning cannot be attributed to the word 'value' made mention of in Section 45B of the Act. There can be no quarrel against the proposition that the registering officer shall always have the power to refer the O.P.(C) No.488/10 & conn. cases 3 instrument to the Collector under Section 45B(1) if he has reason to believe that the value or consideration has not been truly set forth in the instrument. This Court in Rahim Baker v. Sub Registrar (2001(3) KLT S.N.18, Case No.24) has held that the parties cannot escape from the clutches of this provision. Had it been the legislative intention to see that stamp duty is levied on the market value, the same would have been reflected in Section 45B. If the word 'value' which appears in Section 45B is interpreted to mean as market value, Section 28A of the Act would become redundant. The legislature intended, that for the purpose of imposition of stamp duty, a fair value has to be fixed. That is the reason why Section 28A has been introduced. However, as observed earlier, there may be circumstances where the actual consideration passed would be more than the fair value fixed under Section 28A. In such circumstances the parties shall not be allowed to defraud the State Revenue by showing a lesser value or consideration in the instrument. In order to remedy such situations, powers are given under Section 45B for a reference to the Collector. Section 45B also envisages suo motu action by the Collector. That being the case, the market value of the property cannot have any bearing on the question. The material to determine whether stamp duty levied is proper or not is the consideration which actually passed. So, when a reference is made under Section 45B, the Collector has to decide the true consideration which passed O.P.(C) No.488/10 & conn. cases 4 by virtue of the document under consideration and if on such enquiry, it is found that the true consideration which passed is more than what is stated in the document, the District Collector can levy duty. Under no circumstance the District Collector can take into account the market value of the property involved. Only on satisfaction that something more than what was stated as consideration in the document has passed from one party to other is the District Collector justified in directing to pay additional stamp duty. Assessment of stamp duty on the basis of market value is not at all envisaged by the legislature and a direction to pay stamp duty on the market value is incompetent as it is without jurisdiction and is liable to be interfered with."
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - K T Sankaran - Full Document

The Joint Sub-Registrar Ii vs Dr.Jannathul Alia on 22 July, 2015

12.It is to be borne in mind that the Registration of a document shall be deemed to be conferred under Section 61(2) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 only when it is registered in terms of Sections 58 to 61 (1) and not otherwise. Further, in terms of the provisions of Sections 60 and 61 of the Indian Registration Act, the deed is registered at a latter date, but, by reason of Section 47 thereof the Right, Title and Interest in relation to the lands stands transferred from the date of execution of the deed of sale and not from the date of its registration as per decision Rahim Baker V. Sub-Registrar reported in AIR 2002 Kerala at Page 27 at Special Page 29.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - M Venugopal - Full Document

The State Of Kerala vs Sunny on 1 December, 2025

2. The contention of the appellant is that the market value of the property should have been adopted and that the market value is much higher than the amount shown in the document. Placing reliance on the judgments of this Court in State of Kerala and Others Vs. Jino Joseph [2012 (2) KHC 25] and Rahim Baker vs. Sub Registrar [AIR 2002 Kerala 27], the Court below found that the parties cannot escape from the clutches of Section 45B and the value or consideration should have been truly set forth in the instrument. It cannot be said that the legislative intention was to levy stamp duty on the market value. The Court held that, if such an interpretation is placed, Section 28A of the Act would become redundant. The District Court had rendered the judgment after considering the relevant portions of law and the binding decisions of this Court.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - T R Ravi - Full Document
1