Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case When the Judge Signs with the Prosecutor, Justice Is Already Compromised: MP High Court Quashes Tainted Medical College Enquiry Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money Commission Workers Cannot Claim Status of Civil Servants: Gujarat High Court Declines Regularization of Physically Challenged Case-Paper Operators Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation Only a ‘Person Aggrieved’ Can Prosecute Defamation – Political Party Must Be Properly Represented: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi

Property sale value to be determined on date of execution of sale deed: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 25 April 2023, Supreme Court of India has held , in a recent judgment Shanti Bhushan Versus State of U.P. & Ors.,  that the market value of a property with tenancy rights must be determined by making appropriate deductions from the market value of a comparable property which is not encumbered with tenancy.

The case before the Court involved a dispute over the stamp duty payable on a sale deed executed by the appellants in favour of the respondent. The Assistant Stamp Collector, after inspection of the property, had found that the description of the property in the sale deed was incorrect and had determined the market value of the property at Rs. 24,000 per sq. meter based on four sale transactions of the year 2010. However, the appellants had contended that they were tenants of the vendor in respect of the sale deed property, and that the market value should be determined after making deductions for the tenancy rights.

The Supreme Court observed that the market value of a property with tenancy rights will be lower than the market value of a property exclusively in possession of the vendor, as the buyer will not get actual possession of the portion of the property in possession of the tenant. The Court further held that the market value of a property with tenancy rights can be determined by the comparison method, and if no comparable instances are found, by making an appropriate deduction from the market value of a comparable property without encumbrance of tenancy.

The Court set aside the judgments of the Assistant Stamp Collector, the Appellate Authority, and the High Court, and remanded the case back to the Assistant Stamp Collector for determination of the market value of the sale deed land on the date of execution of the sale deed after allowing the appellants to lead evidence on the issue of valuation.

The Court directed the Assistant Stamp Collector to conclude the proceedings as early as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of the judgment. The Court also held that if the market value of the land and structures is found to be lesser than what was determined earlier, the appellants will be entitled to a refund of the excess amount paid with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date on which the amount was paid till the date on which the refund is made.

Shanti Bhushan Versus State of U.P. & Ors.

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/25-Apr-2023-Shanti-Bhushan-Vs-State-Cvil.pdf"]

Latest Legal News