Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.50 seconds)
Savitri Devi vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 29 August, 2022 cites

The State Of Bihar & Ors vs Smt. Tetra Devi on 19 May, 2016

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the materials on record from which it is clear that a reference can be made under Section 47(A)(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, with regard to determination of the classification of the property, only before registration of the sale deed in question and not thereafter, as is clear from Section 47(1)(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 & moreover, this aspect of the matter stands covered by a judgment, rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shahnaz Begam (supra), as also by the one rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in case of Tetra Devi (supra). This Court finds that admittedly, the Respondent No. 5, without any authority or jurisdiction, has referred the matter to the Respondent No. 3, under Section 47(A)(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, after more than seven years which is itself contrary to the mandate of Section 47(A)(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. In any view of the matter, even the Respondent No. 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.9294 of 2018 dt.29-08-2022 10/10 has got no power to suo motu review the correctness of the market value of the property which is the subject matter of the instrument in question & the duty payable thereon, after a lapse of two years from the date of registration of such instrument.
Patna High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - H Gupta - Full Document

Shahbaz Begam vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 15 October, 2015

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the materials on record from which it is clear that a reference can be made under Section 47(A)(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, with regard to determination of the classification of the property, only before registration of the sale deed in question and not thereafter, as is clear from Section 47(1)(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 & moreover, this aspect of the matter stands covered by a judgment, rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shahnaz Begam (supra), as also by the one rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in case of Tetra Devi (supra). This Court finds that admittedly, the Respondent No. 5, without any authority or jurisdiction, has referred the matter to the Respondent No. 3, under Section 47(A)(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, after more than seven years which is itself contrary to the mandate of Section 47(A)(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. In any view of the matter, even the Respondent No. 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.9294 of 2018 dt.29-08-2022 10/10 has got no power to suo motu review the correctness of the market value of the property which is the subject matter of the instrument in question & the duty payable thereon, after a lapse of two years from the date of registration of such instrument.
Patna High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - M K Jha - Full Document
1