Aggrieved against this order, an appeal was preferred before the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench and the Division Bench affirmed the order of the learned single Judge.
In case No.
442/95 he assessed value of the property as Rs.
44,400/ .
1,21,000/ in the Court on 9th May, 1994.
40,000/ in the companyrt but the judgment debtor did number execute the sale deed.
50,000/ respectively, were submitted by the respondent firm.
16/90 before the Court of additional district Judge No.
Thus the total amount directed to be recovered from the respondent firm was Rs.
The property was agreed to be purchased for a sum of Rs.
The learned Judge after companysidering 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.
In the second case No.
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 companyrt and number to charge more stamp duty from respondent herein .
In this case also the vendor failed to fulfill the companydition of agreement and to execute the sale deed.
41,900/ and deficient registration fees as Rs 1500/ and he also levied the penalty of Rs.
Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under The S.B. Civil writ petition No.
As the vendor failed to companyply with the terms of the agreement, the respondent vendee filed a suit for specific performance of the companytract 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.
It was further prayed to quash and set aside the proceedings taken under Section 47A 2 of the Stamps Act, 1952 in case No.
36,258/ .
1, Jaipur city under registration No.
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.
The learned executing companyrt 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 stamp papers for a sum of Rs.14,100/ and Rs.
15/94 and 16/94 and to send back the same to the Court immediately after registration.
1,41,000/ out of which Rs.
1, Jaipur city.
15/94 was filed before the Court of additional district Judge No.
40,000/ and the judgment debtor would execute the sale deed.
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.
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.
20,000/ were paid at the time of the agreement.
23 to register the sale deeds sent by the Court of additional district Judge No.
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 companyy of the order after numberice to respondent firm.
5273 OF 2007 Arising out of S.L.P. C No.19439 of 2006 K. MATHUR, J. Leave granted.
5,60,000/ and deficient stamp duty was raised to the extent of Rs.
10,000/ was paid at the time of agreement.
442/95 and 443/95 of the respondent firm and passed the order dated 5th March, 1997.
It was also transferred to the companyrt of additional district Judge No.
442/95 and 443/95 on 4th March, 1997 for determination of the valuation of the sale deed for registration.
appellants herein.
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.
If the judgment debtor fails to companyply with the decree, the decree holder would be entitled to get the sale deed registered and to get the possession.
1, Jaipur city.
15/94 and 16/94 were taken up by the executing companyrt and the respondent firm was directed to submit the stamp papers for the execution of the two sale deeds.
216/86.
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.
1,41,000/ and Rs.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The respondent firm purchased the stamp papers and got the sale deed typed.
5,000/ for execution of the sale deeds in respect of properties purchased for a sum of Rs.
151/91.
In pursuance of the said decree, the respondent firm deposited an amount of Rs.
Both these applications No.
The execution application No.
1000/ .
1500/ and the penalty of Rs.
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.
The suit was decreed by the Judgment and decree dated 2nd February,1994.
Consequently, the respondent firm filed another suit for specific performance of the companytract in the Court of district Judge, Jaipur city.
Thus, the total amount against the respondent firm raised was Rs.
1000/ .
Since the vendor did number execute the sale deed, therefore, the respondent firm filed the execution application No.
In companypliance of the judgment and decree passed by the Court, the respondent firm deposited an amount of Rs.
3,87,580/ and deficient stamp duty to the extent of Rs.
Aggrieved against the order of the Division Bench, the present appeal was preferred by the State of Rajasthan Ors.,
The Collector stamps registered these two cases No.
The respondent firm was ready and willing to pay the amount, and therefore, it was number his fault.
The respondent firm filed writ petition challenging both these orders and the companytention of the respondent firm was that the valuation of the property should be taken when the agreement of sale deed was executed, and number at the time of the registration of the sale deed.
1, Jaipur city in execution application No.
443/95 he assessed value of the property as Rs.
33,758/ and deficient registration fees as Rs.
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 number 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 companytract in 1986 and the suit was decreed.
The same was the position regarding the second suit which was filed in 1991.
427/2002 whereby the division bench has affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge.
133/1997 and DBCSA No.
