- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.11.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in SBCWP No. 133/1997 and DBCSA No. 427/2002 whereby the division bench has affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge.
(3.) Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under: The S.B. Civil writ petition No. 133/97 was filed by M/s Khandaka Jain Jewellers, petitioner (respondent herein) in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur who prayed that a direction may be issued to the respondent Nos. 2&3 to register the sale deeds sent by the Court of additional district Judge No. 1, Jaipur city in execution application No. 15/94 and 16/94 and to send back the same to the Court immediately after registration. It was also prayed that the respondents may be directed to register the sale deeds on the stamps on which it is executed by the executing court and not to charge more stamp duty from respondent (herein). It was further prayed to quash and set aside the proceedings taken under Section 47A(2) of the Stamps Act, 1952 in case No. 442/95 and 443/95 on 4th March, 1997 for determination of the valuation of the sale deed for registration. The respondent is a registered firm and it entered into two agreements for purchase of properties with Shri Prem Chand Ajmera, resident of 2148, Haldiyon Ka Rasta Jaipur by one agreement dated 20th October, 1983. The property was agreed to be purchased for a sum of Rs. 1,41,000/- out of which Rs. 20,000/- were paid at the time of the agreement. As the vendor failed to comply with the terms of the agreement, the respondent vendee filed a suit for specific performance of the contract in the Court of district Judge, Jaipur city which was later on transferred to the Court of additional district Judge No.1, Jaipur city under registration No. 216/86. The suit was decreed by the Judgment and decree dated 2nd February,1994. In pursuance of the said decree, the respondent firm deposited an amount of Rs. 1,21,000/- in the Court on 9th May, 1994. Since the vendor did not execute the sale deed, therefore, the respondent firm filed the execution application No. 16/90 before the Court of additional district Judge No. 1, Jaipur city. In another agreement dated 20TH October, 1983 the vendor Premchand agreed to sell a portion of property for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- out of which Rs. 10,000/- was paid at the time of agreement. The respondent firm purchased the stamp papers and got the sale deed typed. In this case also the vendor failed to fulfill the condition of agreement and to execute the sale deed. Consequently, the respondent firm filed another suit for specific performance of the contract in the Court of district Judge, Jaipur city. It was also transferred to the court of additional district Judge No. 1, Jaipur city under registration No. 151/91. The suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 2nd February, 1994 and the respondent firm was directed to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 40,000/- and the judgment debtor would execute the sale deed. If the judgment debtor fails to comply with the decree, the decree holder would be entitled to get the sale deed registered and to get the possession. In compliance of the judgment and decree passed by the Court, the respondent firm deposited an amount of Rs. 40,000/- in the court but the judgment debtor did not execute the sale deed. The execution application No. 15/94 was filed before the Court of additional district Judge No. 1, Jaipur city. Both these applications No. 15/94 and 16/94 were taken up by the executing court and the respondent firm was directed to submit the stamp papers for the execution of the two sale deeds. The stamp papers for a sum of Rs.14,100/- and Rs. 5,000/- for execution of the sale deeds in respect of properties purchased for a sum of Rs. 1,41,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- respectively, were submitted by the respondent firm. The learned executing court executed the sale deeds and sent the same on 17th March, 1995 for registration before the Sub- registrar, Registration Department, Collectorate Bani Park, Jaipur. The Sub-Registrar exercising its powers under Section 47A(1) of the Stamp Act sent these two sale deeds to Collector (Stamps) Jaipur for determining the market value and to assess the charge of the stamp duty. The Collector (stamps) registered these two cases No. 442/95 and 443/95 of the respondent firm and passed the order dated 5th March, 1997. In case No. 442/95 he assessed value of the property as Rs. 5,60,000/- and deficient stamp duty was raised to the extent of Rs. 41,900/- and deficient registration fees as Rs 1500/- and he also levied the penalty of Rs. 1000/-. Thus, the total amount against the respondent firm raised was Rs. 44,400/-. In the second case No. 443/95 he assessed value of the property as Rs. 3,87,580/- and deficient stamp duty to the extent of Rs. 33,758/- and deficient registration fees as Rs. 1500/- and the penalty of Rs. 1000/-. Thus the total amount directed to be recovered from the respondent firm was Rs. 36,258/-. The respondent firm filed writ petition challenging both these orders and the contention of the respondent firm was that the valuation of the property should be taken when the agreement of sale deed was executed, and not at the time of the registration of the sale deed. The learned Single Judge relying on the judgment in the case of Sub Registrat, Kodad Town and Mandal v. Amaranaini China Venkat Rao and Others reported in AIR 1998 Andhra Pradesh 252 allowed the writ petition and observed that since the vendor backed out and did not execute the sale deed of the property in pursuance of the agreement on 20th October, 1983 therefore, the respondent firm filed a suit for specific performance of contract in 1986 and the suit was decreed. The respondent firm was ready and willing to pay the amount, and therefore, it was not his fault. The same was the position regarding the second suit which was filed in 1991. The learned Judge after considering the matter directed to set aside both the orders and held that for the purpose of charging stamp duty, etc, the relevant date for assessment of the market value shall be the date on which the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sale was filed. Consequently the order dated 4th March, 1997 (Annexure 5 & 6) was quashed and the authorities were directed to pass a fresh order regarding the market value of the property in question for the purpose of levy of the stamp duty as on the date of filing of the suit and also directed to undertake this exercise keeping in view the observation of the judgment within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order after notice to respondent firm.;