Holding

The deeds were assignments of leasehold rights, so Article 63 of Schedule 1‑B of the U.P. Stamp Act applies and stamp duty is payable on the consideration mentioned in the deed, not on market value, and Section 47A does not apply.

Summary

The Residents Welfare Association, Noida sought stamp duty relief on deeds transferring leasehold rights of plots allotted by the Noida Authority to cooperative societies and subsequently to its members. The authorities demanded duty under Article 23 of Schedule 1‑B of the U.P. Stamp Act based on the current market value, treating the deeds as sales. The Supreme Court examined whether the documents were assignments of leasehold rights (Article 63) or conveyances of sale (Article 23), whether Section 47A’s condition precedent applied, and which date should determine the consideration. It held that the deeds were assignments of leasehold rights, so Article 63 applies and duty is payable on the consideration stated in the deed, not on market value, rendering Section 47A inapplicable. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside and the appeal allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the documents were deeds of assignment under Article 63 of Schedule 1‑B of the Stamp Act or deeds of conveyance under Article 23.
Whether the condition precedent under Section 47A of the Stamp Act was satisfied.
Which date – the date of agreement or the date of registration – is relevant for determining the consideration for stamp duty.
Whether stamp duty could be levied on buildings constructed after possession by the assignees.
Whether the nomenclature of the document determines its nature as a lease or assignment.

Legislation cited

Registration Act, 1908s. 23, s. 52
Transfer of Property Act, 1882s. 105, s. 54

Subjects

stamp dutyassignment of leaseArticle 63Section 47Aconsiderationmarket valueleasehold rightstransfer memorandumregistration

Judgment

[2009) 6 S.C.R. 112

'
A MIS. RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, NOIDA
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4367 of 2000}
APRIL 15, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND TARUN CHATIERJEE, JJ.]
~

Stamp Act, 1899 - s. 47 A (as amended by state of U.P.)
and Schedule 1-B Articles 23 and 63 - allotment of plots -
c By transfer of leasehold rights - From Naida Authority to Co-
operative societies (lessees) and its members (sub-lessees)
- Further transfer by assignment of leasehold rights from sub-
lessees to the member of residents welfare Association - On
such transfer Naida Authority not issuing transfer
D memorafldums for grant of permission for transfer of
leasehold rights due to court injunction - after a considerable
period, Noida Authority issuing transfer memorandum -
Regular deeds of transfer executed between the sub-lessees
and assignees - For registration of the deeds authorities
E concerned demanding the duty as applicable to sale deed
under Article 23 of Schedule 1-B on the bash; of current market
value of the plot alongwith constructed portion thereon - Held:
The deed in question being an assignment of leasehold rights
and not a sale deed, article 63 and not article 23 would be
applicable - The duty would be calculated on the amount
F
mentioned in the deed and not on its market value - Inquiry
into market value not permissible - Since there was no
a/fegation of under-valuation of the property reference u/s.
47A not called for - Relevant date for determination of the
consideration of the property in question would the date of
G agreement and not the date when the document was_ •
presented for registration - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - ...._
ss. 54 and 105 - Deeds and Documents.

Deeds and Documents - Document of assignment -
112
H ....
RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, NOIDA v. 113
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
,_
Ascertainment of nature - Held: Nomenclature of such A-
-. document cannot be said to be determining factor for
ascertainment of nature of such document.

NOIDA Authority allotted lands to several Co-
operative Housing Societies by execution of lease deeds.
B
Members of the appellant-Residents Welfare Association
executed various agreements for transfer of leasehold
rights with the Lessee (Cooperative Societies) and the
-· sub-lessees {members of the Co-operative societies).
... Sub-lessees further entered into agreements for transfer
of leasehold rights with assignees {members of the c
appellant-Association) These agreements were registered
with the office of Sub-Registrar. However, Noida Authority
did not issue transfer memorandums for grant of
permission for transfer of leasehold rights due to a court
injunction. After it was advertised by public notice that D
Noida Authorities would Issue transfer memorandums,
various members of the appellant-Association applied for
and obtained the transfer memorandums. As per one of
the conditions of transfer memorandum lessees/sub-
lessees executed regular deed of transfer with the E
assignees. Before submission of the document for
registration, on enquiry, the assignees were informed that
stamp duty required to be fixed on the document was to
~
be what was applicable to conveyance under Article 23
of Schedule 1-B of Stamp Act, on the basis of current F
market value of the plot alongwith constructed portion
thereon. Appellant challenged this decision in a writ
petition, which was dismissed by High Court. Hence the
present appeal.
G
+ The question for consideration in the present appeal
were whether the documents in question were the deeds
"of assignment falling ulArt. 63 of the Schedule 1-8 or
deeds of conveyance to which Article 23 would be
applicable; whether the condition precedent to pass an
H
114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R. -
~
A order u/s. 47 A (as amended by State of U.P.) was present
in the case; and whether the relevant date for ..
determining the consideration entered in the document
would be the market value of the property which was on
the day of entering into the agreement or that which was
B on the date of presentation of the document for
registration.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. From a plain reading of Section 54 and
c Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, there
cannot be any doubt that in case of a lease, there is a
.
partial transfer and the right of reversion remains with the
lessor. Whereas in case of a sale, there must be an
absolute transfer of ownership and not some rights only
D as in the case of a lease. In the instant case, the lessor
had enteri!d into the lease agreement with the co- ;
operative societies and their members, being lessees and
the sub-lessees respectively, and the sub-lessees further
entered into the agreements with the assignees
E (members of the appellant-Association). Such being the
position, the document in question presented for
registration before the registration officer was, in fact, a
lease and the transfer to the members of the association
was an assignment of the leasehold rights~ The demised ...
land was merely an enjoyment of the land and not transfer
F
of the ownership. [Para 17] [131-F-H; 132-B]

Byramjee Jeejeebhoy (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
AIR 1965 SC 590, relied on.

G 1.2. The decision of the High Court that the document
given for registration contained a composite deed of •
lease as well as a deed of sale, and therefore, both Article
63 as well as Article 23 of Stamp Act would apply, is not
correct. The document consists of a single deed of .·
H assignment of lease. [Para 19] [132-F-G]
RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, NOIDA v. 115
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
1.3. The lease deed specifically provides for a right A
of reversion to the land and appurtenances thereto
including buildings, on the termination or expiry of the
lease. Thus the buildings and all other appurtenants
attached to the land become a part of the assigned
transfer through lease and not a separate sale. Moreover B
Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act states that when
an immovable property such as land is transferred by
way of assignment of lease, all appurtenances thereto
attached to the earth such as buildings and fixtures
thereto would also stand assigned. [Paras 20 and 21] c
[134-E-G]

1.4. The nomenclature to the document of
assignment cannot be said to be determining factor in
deciding whether a particular deed or document was a D ..
lease or a deed of assignment: Although some of the
members of the association had termed the document as
a deed of sale or transfer cum sale deed instead of as a
deed of assignment, it remains as a deed of assignment.
[Para 23] (135-8-D]
E
Madras Refinery Ltd. v. C.S. AIR 1977 SC 500, relied
on

1.5. Article 63 of Schedule 1-B to Stamp Act would
apply in case of a transfer of lease by way of an
assignment and Article 23 applies in case of a F
conveyance by way of sale. Article 63 in clear terms
mentions that in case of an assignment, the duty that
would be payable is the same duty as conveyance for a
consideration equal to the amount of the consideration for the
transfer. Thus it is clear that the duty is not calculated on G
the market value but on the amount of consideration
mentioned in the deed itself. It was not open to the
registering officer to embark upon an enquiry into the
market value of the land or the building in view of the fact
that it is only the leasehold rights which are only . H
116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

A transferred by way of assignment by the document/ '
instrument presented for registration. [Paras 24 and 25]
[135-E-F; 136-E-G]

2.1. Section 47 A would be applicable only when
Article 23 is applicable. In case Article 63 applies, the
B
registration officer does not have any jurisdiction to
enquilie into the market value of a property under Section
47A of the Stamp Act. The power u/s. 47A of the Act can ~
be exercised in respect of an instrument presented for
registration on which duty must be charged on its market
c value. Thus Section 47 A applies in case of an outright
sale. Since the instrument in question is not an out right
sale but a hold lease right, therefore, the question arises
whether the condition precedent mentioned in the Act
has been fulfilled and, if not, the reference u/s 47A was
D invalid. [Para 26) (136-H; 137-A-C)
;.
2.2. Section 47 A provides that when the valuation
shown in the agreement presented for registration is,
according to the authorities, under-valued, in that case,
E the registering authorities are conferred with the
discretion to hold an enquiry to find out if the duty
chargeable on the market value of the property is less
than even the minimum value determined in accordance
with the rules made under the Act. As is evident from the ..
F records, the appellant could not execute the sale deed
because of the failure of the respondent No.4 i.e. Noida
Authorities, to execute transfer memorandum due to the
orders of injunction passed in pending litigations before
the different courts. Therefore the appellant cannot be
faulted for not executing the same. The consideration
G
,.- mentioned on the agreement to sell was absolutely
adequate with regard to the market value of the property •
at that time and the same was registered before the
registering authority. Moreover, there are no allegations
on record against the appellant of under-valuation at the
H
RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, NOIDA v. 117
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
~

time of entering into the agreement for transfer of the A
property. Therefore, even if it is assumed that Section 47A
applies in this case, it can be seen that there was no
fraudulent intention on the part of the appellant to under-
value the property in order to evade stamp duty paid
thereon. Since the stamp duty is to be charged on the B
consideration mentioned in the document under Article
63 of Schedule 1-B of the Act in case of an assignment
of lease, the consideration mentioned on the document
was adequate in respect of the time when the agreement
of the transfer by way of lease was registered. The c
execution of the deed had not been delayed due to any
fault on the part of the appellant and therefore he cannot
be held liable for intentionally suppressing the value of
the property. Thus even if Section 47 A of the Act would
""' have applied, the registering officer would have no D
•>jurisdiction to refer it to the Collector since there was
never any intention on the part of the appellant to under-
value the property. [Para 26] [137-C-H; 138-B·D]
State of Punjab v. Mahavir Singh, 1996 1 SCC 609,
relied on. E

3.1. There cannot be a straightjacket formula devised
" for determining the relevant date for determination of
... consideration mentioned in the document. It would
depend on the various facts and circumstances of a F
particular case. In situations where the delay is caused
on the part of a party intentionally while executing a deed
after entering into an agreement of sale or lease as the
case may be, the market value should be determined on
the date when the deed is executed and not when an G
· agreement to sale of the property or lease the property
~
had been registered. But in cases where a person is not
at fault and the delay is caused due to the lessor as in
this case, the market value should be determined on the
H
118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

A date when the agreement to lease the property was
entered. The lessee or the sub lessee should not suffer
due to the inability of the lessor in handing over transfer
memorandums as is required under the lease. [Para 27]
[138-G-H; 139-A-B]
B
S.P. Pacfmavati v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. AIR
1997 Mad 296, referred to.

3.2. The question of determination of the market
value does not arise at all in case of an assignment of
C lease which is to be charged as per Article 63 of the Act.
Market value can be truly determined in case of an
outright sale. The present case does not deal with such
a situation. [Para 28] [139-E-F]
r

0 3.3. The consideration to be mentioned in the
assignment of transfer by way of a lease would be the .
market value of the property on the date of agreement for
sale when the property could not be registered earlier due
to no fault of the members of the Associations and when
E their conside1ration was frozen earlier. [Para 29] [140-A-
B]

3.4. In the instant case Article 63 of Schedule 1-8 of
the Stamp Act, as applicable to the State of U.P., which
deals with transfer of lease by way of assignment will -+
F apply to the documents in question. The consideration
to be mentioned in the document would be the market
value of the property on the date when the agreement
was entered into and not when it was presented for
registration, considering the peculiar facts of this case.
G [Para 30] [140-G-H; 141-A-B]
Case Law Reference:
1996 1 sec 609 Relied on. Para 13
AIR 1965 SC 590 Relied on. Para 18
H
RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, NOIDA v. 119
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
~

AIR 1977 SC 500 Relied on. Para 23 '
A
,.
AIR 1997 Mad 296 Referred to. Para 27
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
4367 of 2000.
B
From the Judgment & Order dated 27.5.1999.of the High
Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 38748/1997.

Manish Kumar, Amit Kumar, Nityanand Yadav and Rakesh
K. Sharma for the Appellant.
c
Ravindra Kumar and S. Wasim A. Qadri for the
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. 1. This appeal by special D
leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 27th
of May, 1999 of the Division Bench of the High Court of
Allahabad in Writ Petition No 38748 of 1997 whereby, the
Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed the Writ
Petition filed by the appellants above named. E

2. The relevant facts leading to the filing of this appeal, as
emerging from the case made out by the appellant may be
j.
, summarized as follows:-
F
New Okhla Industrial Development Area (in short "Naida")
allotted lands to several Co-operative Housing Societies by
execution of lease deeds with such Co-operative Group
Housing Societies in respect of the lands allotted to them. The
said lease deeds contain various restrictions on the transfer of
leasehold rights which, interalia include: G
·~

(1) Restrictions on the transfer without prior consent of the
Naida authorities by transfer memorandum.
(2) Construction of buildings on such leasehold lands had H
120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

A to be made within a stipulated period from the date of
allotment failing which the leases of the respective Co-
operative housing societies were liable to be resumed by
the Noida authorities.

8 3. The lease deeds also contained another clause, which
stipulated that such lease deeds must be compulsorily
registered with the sub-Registrar. It may be clarified that Noida
is the lessor, the co-operative societies are the lessees,
members of the cooperative societies are sub-lessees and the
C present appellants are the assignees.

4. The appellant is the Resident Welfare Association,
Noida, (hereinafter called the "Association"). The members of
the association executed various agreements for transfer of
leasehold. rights with the co-operative societies and its
D members from 1988 onwards. Each of the agreements for
transfer of leasehold rights entered into by the members of the
association with the lessees and the sub-lessees were
registered with the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Noida. It may
be kept on record that from 1984 to June 1997, Noida
E authorities were injuncted by the Civil Court from issuing transfer
memorandums for grant of permission for transfer of leasehold
rights. The order of injunction was operative from 1988 and
continued almost throughout the State of UP till July 1997. It may
also be kept on record that the agreements for transfer of
F leasehold rights were denoted as agreements of sale. The
various transactions entered into by the members of the
association may be categorized in three different heads:

(1) By the agreements of transfer entered into and
possession taken over on payment of most or all of the
G consideration due and such agreements being duly
registered with the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Noida on
payment of stamp duty charges at half of the stamp duty
payable on a conveyance for the consideration set forth
in the agreement in accordance with Article 5 (b)(1) of
H
RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, NOIDA v. 121
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [TARUN CHATIERJEE, J.]
•
Schedule 1-B to the UP Stamp Act, A

(2) By the agreements entered into and possession not
taken under the agreements, but later the said agreements
were duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Noida,

(3) In both the above mentioned categories, the B
agreements for transfer were either for a plot of land on ·
which construction was made thereafter by the assignees
(members of the association) of the leasehold property out
of their own funds or the agreements for a plot of land
along with the building constructed thereon. Thus in some c
cases, as noted hereinabove, the plots were purchased
along with small construction which was later demolished
and the assignees constructed new building after obtaining
new sanction plans using their own funds.
D
-1 5. On 1st of July, 1997, a public notice was issued
advertising that Noida authorities shall issue transfer
memorandums with respect to the transfer of plots in question
upon terms and conditions including payment of transfer
'·
-
premium. Upon issuance of the said notice, various members E
of the association applied for and obtained transfer
memorandums from Noida authorities after complying with the
conditions thereof and making payments of the prescribed
~ premium. One of the conditions, namely condition no. 4 of the
··.· transfer memorandum issued by the Noida authorities required
F
the lessees of the demised premises to execute a regular
deeds of transfer with the assignees and to get the same
registered with the Sub-Registrar, Noida. A copy of the same
was required to be filed with the Noida authorities within a
period of 60 days failing which, the Noida authorities would be
f
entitled to cancel such transfer and impose a penalty for G
revalidation of the transfer memorandum. It is at this stage
appropriate that condition no. 4 of the transfer memorandum
may be produced for the proper understanding of the dispute
in this case:
H
122 SUPREME CO,URT REPORTS [2009) 6 S.C.R.

A "The transfsree will submit a certified copy of transfer deed
to be duly registered with Office of the Sub-Registrar,
Noida within 60 days from the date of issue of this
memorandum. This transfer deed is requimd to be signed
by the person who has signed the transfer application. The
B transferE~e of the transfer deed executed by power of
attorney holder of the transferor <:lfter 30th September 1997
§hall be liable to pay additional transfer charges as per ~
p6flcy of the Authority. If the transferor/transferee fails to
exeeute and register the transfer deed within 60 days from
c the date of this memorandum then this transfer
memorandum shall be required t,o be revalidated subject
to paym,~nt of penalty at transferring rate applicable from
time to time (present penalty for de1lay in executing transfer
deed is Rs. 10/- per day for actual period of delay over
and above the given period of 60 days)"
D
6. In compliance with the above stated condition of the
transfer memorandum, some of the members of the association
executed the relevant transfer deeds with the lessees. It
appears that these transfer deeds were in essence and in
E reallt.y deeds for transfer of the lease by way of assignments
by the original lessees in favour of the members of the
association. Prior to submitting the documents for registration,
enquiries were made as to the stamp duty payable on which
the officials of the respondent no. 3 informed that the stamp duty
F to be fixed on the documents should be as applicable to
conveyance under Article 23 of the Schedule 1-B of the Stamp
Act, on the basis of the current market value of the plot along
with the constructed portion thereon and for which reference to
the present notified rates for Noida would be taken, as
G indicative of the market value.
7. Challenging this decision of the Sub-Registrar, a Writ
Petition was filed before the Allahabad High Court. In the Writ
application, the appellant raised the following .issues:
H (1) Whether the relevant date for determination Qf the
RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, NOIDA v. 123
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [TARUN CHATIERJEE, J.]
•
market value of property would be the date of agreement A
to sell, when the consideration was frozen, or the date of
presentation of the documents of transfer for registration?

(2) Whether the stamp duty could be levied on the buildings
that have been constructed after getting possession of the B
lands and whose cost has been borne entirely by the
members of the association?

8. The Division Bench of the High Court decided the
aforesaid two questions and it was held inter-alia, as follows:
c
(1) As far as the leasehold land is concerned, it can only
be the subject matter of assignment and not absolute sale
by the very nature of the land and therefore both Articles
23 and 63 of the Schedule of the Indian Stamp Act would
be applicable. D
(2) Whether the association or its members constructed
the buildings was a question of fact, which the High C.ourt
in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution was not in a position to determine.
E
(3) If the Constructions were made after the possession
was delivered to the members of the association, stamp
duty could not be levied on the buildings so constructed,
as they were not the subject matter of transfer between the
sub-lessees and assignees. F
(4) Market value of the lands could not be calculated on
the date of agreement to sell but the same can be
calculated on the date of execution of the conveyance
deed.
,_
G
9. Based on the aforesaid findings, the Division Bench of
the High Court rejected the Writ application of the appellant.
10. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the Division
Bench of the High Court, the association had filed this special H
124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 6 S.C.R.

A leave petition, which on grant of leave was heard in the
presence of the learned counsel for the parties.

11. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and have carefully examined the materials on record.
Having done that the pivotal questions that need to be decided
8
in this appeal, as were decided by the High Court are as follows:

(1) Whether the condition precedent to pass an order under
section 47 A of the Stamp Act, as amended by the State
of Uttar Pradesh (in short U.P.), was present in the instant
c case?

(2) Whether the said documents were deeds of
assignment falling under Article 63 of the Schedule 1-B of
the Stamp Act, as applicable to the State of UP or they
D were deeds of conveyance, as defined in section 2(10) of
the Stamp Act to which Article 23 would be applicable?

(3) Whether the document dated 22nd of November, 1997,
is a deed of assignment or it is a conveyance to which
Article 23 applies and if so, whether the order dated 22nd
E of November, 1997, passed by the Sub-Registrar
purporting to make a reference under Section 47 A of the
Stamp Act, as applicable to the State of UP is not legal
and without jurisdiction?

F (4) Whether the relevant date for determining the
consideration entered in the document would be the market
value of the property on the day of entering into the
agreement for sale and not the date of presentation of the
documents for registration?
G 12. We shall now proceed to deal with the questions
framed by us in this appeal. Let us first cor ;;der the scope of
Section 47 A of the Stamp Act as amended by the State of
UP, and the condition precedent for invocation of Section 47
A of the Act which would be necessary for passing an order
H
RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, NOIDA v. 125
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [TARUN CHATIERJEE, J.]
under the said Section of the Stamp Act as applicable to the A
State of UP. Section 47 A was substituted by UP Act 38 of
2001 with effect from 20th of May, 2002, whereby a provision
has been made to charge duty as per the market value of the
property valued in case of evasion of the stamp duty. Section
47 A reads as under: B

"47-A. Instruments of conveyance etc., if undeNalued, how
to be dealt with:- (1)(a) If the market value of any property
which is the subject of any instrument on which duty is
chargeable on the market value of the property as set forth
in such instrument is less than even the minimum value C
determined in accordance with any rules made under the
Act, the registering officer appointed under Indian
Registration Act, 1908, shall, notwithstanding anything
contained in the said Act, immediately after presentation
of such instruments and before accepting it for registration D
and taking any action under section 52 of the said Act,
require the person liable to pay the deficit stamp duty as
computed on the basis of the minimum value determined
in accordance with the said rules and return the instrument
for presenting again in accordance with section 23 of the E
Registration Act, 1908.

(b) When the deficit stamp duty required to be paid under
clause (a), is paid in respect of any instrument and the
instrument is presented again for registration, the F
registering officer shall certify by endorsement thereon, that
the deficit stamp duty has been paid in respect thereon
and the name and the residence of the person paying them
and regist~r the same.
(~) Notwithstanding anything contained in any provision of G
the Act, the deficit stamp duty may be paid under clause
(a) in form of impressed stamp containing such
declarations as may be prescribed.
(d) If any person does not make the payment of deficit H
126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

A stamp duty after receiving the order referred to in clause
(a) and present the instrument again for registration, the
registering officer shall, before registering the instrument,
refer the~ same to the Collector for determination of the
market value of such property and the proper duty payable
B thereon.

(2) On receipt of a reference under sub section (1) the
Collector shall, after giving the parties a reasonable
opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in
such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under
c this Act, determine the market value of the property which
is the subject of the instrument and proper duty payable
thereon.

(3) The Collector may suo moto, or on a reference from
D any court or from the Commissioner of Stamps or an
Additional Commissioner of Stamps or a Deputy
Commissioner of Stamps or an Assistant Commissioner
of Stamps or any Officer authorized by the Board of
Revenue in that regard, within four years from the date of
E registration of any instrument on which duty is chargeable
on the market value of the property, not already referred
to him under sub section (1), call for and examine the
instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the
correctness of the market value of the property which is
F the subject of such instrument and the duty payable thereon,
and if after such examination he has reason to believe that
the market value of such property has not been truly set
forth in the instrument, he may determine the market value
of such property and the duty payable thereon. Provided
that, with the prior permission of the State Government, an
··- G
action under this sub section may be taken after the period
of four years but before the period of eight years from the ~·

date of the registration of the instrument on which the duty
is chargeable on the market value of the property.
H
RESIDENn~ WELFARE ASSOCIATIOO, NOIDA v. 127
STATE OF U.P. & OR~. [TARUN CHATIER,JEE, J.]
• Explanatiion- The payment of deficit stamp duty by any A
person by any order of the registering officer under sub
section (~1) shall not prevent the Collector from initiating
proceed'ings on any instrument under sub section ,(3).

(4) If ori enquiry under sub section (2) and examination 8
under s.ub section (3) the Collector finds the market value
of the property-

(a) truly set forth and the document duly stamped, i'ie shall
certify :by endorsement that it is duly stamped and r;~tum it
. to the person who made tl~e reference ' C

(b) noit truly set forth and not \truly stamped, he shall require
the payment of the proper duty or the amount required to
make1 up the deficiency in the same together with a ,pen~lty
of ari amount not exceeding (our times the amount .of o
proper
I
duty or the deficit portion'.thereof.
I

(4A) The Collector shall also requii·e along with th1e deficit
sti,.tnp duty or penalty required to bE.~ paid under cl'ause~ (ii)
of sub section (4), the payment of~ simple inter-est as a .•.
r~ite of one and a half per mens um on the amount of deficit ·•E
sllamp duty calculated from the date of executior,1 of the
instrument till the date of actual payment.
<4B) The amount of interest payable under sub section· (4A)
• shall be added to the amount due and also deemec.1 for F
all purposes for the amount required to be paid.

(4C) Where the realization of the deficit stamp duty
remains stayed by any order of any court or any authority
and such order is subsequently vacated, the interest G
referred to in sub section (4A) shall be payable also for
the period during which the order or stay remained in
operation.
(4D)Any amount paid or deposiited by, or recovered from,
or refundable to, a person unde:r the provision of this Act, H
128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 6 S.C.R.

A shall first be adjusted towards the deficit stamp duty or
penalty outstanding against him, and the excess, if any
shall then b.e adjusted towards the interest, if any, due from
him

(5) The instrument produced before the Collector under sub
B
section (2) or sub section (3) shall be deemed to have
come before him in performance of his function

(6) ln case the instrument is not produced within the period
specified by the Collector, he may require payment of
c deficit stamp duty, if any, together with penalty on the copy
of instrument in accordance with the procedure laid down
in sub section (2) and (4)."

13. Before the introduction of Section 47 A in the Stamp
0 Act, there was no provision under the said Act empowering the
revenue authorities to make an enquiry regarding the valuation
of the property conveyed for the purpose of determining the duty
chargeaole, if, the registering authorities were of the view that
the valuation shown in the document was undervalued. This was
E reflected through the decision in Himalaya House Company
v. Chief Controlling Authority & another, AIR 1972 SC 898,
whereby this court held that the stamp duty was chargeable as
conveyance under Article 23 and the Collector (Stamps) was
not entitled to charge stamp duty on a document presented for
registration except on the consideration set forth in the
F document. Pursuant to this judgment, several States amended
the Stamp Act. The State of UP also introduced an amendment
by way of Sec;tion 47 A, which has been quoted herein above.
Thus, the object underlying Section 47 A of the Indian Stamp
Act is to neutralize the effect of under valuation of immovable
G property under registered instrument of sale or exchang~ or gift
or partition or settlement. From a bare perusal of sub-section
(1) of Section 47 A of the Act, it is clear that if the market value
of any property, which is the subject matter of an instrument on
which stamp duty is chargeable, as set forth in the instrument,
H is less than even the minimum value determined in accordance
RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, NOIDA v. 129
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [TARUN CHATIERJEE, J.]
f with the rules made under this Act, the registering officer shall A
..... requestj~e person to pay the deficit stamp duty and present
the instrument again for registration. At the same time, it should
be kept in mind that it is not enough for the authorities for the
purpose of invoking Section 47 A that the consideration
amount stated in the instrument of sale is less than the B
prevailing market value but they must be satisfied that there is
an attempt of under valuation. It is pertinent to mention that if
the registering authority finds that the market value of the
property presented for registration is higher than the one shown
in the document, in that case, the registering authority after c
presentation of such instrument and before accepting the
• document for registration would ask the person liable to pay
the required stamp duty, to pay the deficit amount as computed
on the basis of the minimum value determined in accordance
with the rules and return the instrument for presenting the D
document again in accordance with Section 23 of the
Registration Act. Again a close look at Sub-Section (2) of
Section 47 A reveals that in case such an officer has reason
to believe that the market value of the property has been under
valued, he shall refer the same to the Collector but only after
E
registering the same. Even for the sake of argument, if we
assume that Section 47 A is applicable in the present case,
then also it is apparent that in the current scenario,
theregistering authority could not register the said instrument
t before referring it to the Collector which has been mandated
under the Act. For the further illustration of this point, we may F
"
refer to the decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Mahavir
Singh, (1996) 1 SCC 609, where this Court has categorically
held that whenever a document is presented for registration,
the Sub-Registraris required first to register the document and
then make a reference under Section 47 A if he deems fit and G
proper.

14. Before we proceed further to ascertain whether Section
47 A would at all be applicable in the present case at our
disposal, we have to first establish whether the alleged H
130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 6 S.C.R.

A documents were deeds of assignment falling under Article 63 ..
of the Schedule 1-B of the Stamp Act as applicable to the State
of UP, or they were deeds of conveyance, as defined in Section
2(10) of the Stamp Act to which Article 23 would be applicable.
-
It is only aftE!r this question is properly answered, that we can
B proceed to ainswer whether Section 47 A would be applicable
in the present case.

15. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that
since Article 63, Schedule 1-B of the Act is a specific provision
that deals with transfer of lease by way of an assignment; it
c should be excluded from general provisions. This Article is the
charging provision for such transfers. It provides for the duty to
be charged which is equal to conveyances as provided in
Article 23 of the said Schedule, the only distinguishing factor
being that in the former, the rate of duty would be according to
0 the consideration mentioned in the deed, while the later states
the exact duty chargeable. The learned counsel also contended
that for application of Article 23, it is necessary that there is a
conveyance. It was also contended by him that themain condition
for registration of an instrument is that it must be chargeable
E to duty on the market value and the same is possible in case
of an out right sale. In case of lease, only partial rights are
transferred and the right of reversion remains with the lessor
whereas in case of sale, there is an absolute transfer of
ownership. Therefore, we have to establish whether the .
F documents presented for registration were, in fact, an out right /
sale or a deed of lease. The learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent no 4. (i.e. being the Naida authorities)
contended that the deed was a composite deed of assignment
and sale owing to which both Articles 23 and 63 would be
G applicable. The Division Bench of the High Court in its
impugned judgment also agreed to this contention. Thus,
considering this, it becomes essential for us to determine the
nature of the deed.
16. "Sale" has been defined under section 54 of the
H
RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, NOIDA v. 131
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [TARUN CHATIERJEE, J.]
~ Transfer of Property Act. Although the Indian Stamp Act 1899 A
has not included the definition of "sale", Section 2, sub-section
(10) of the Act defines "conveyance" as including a conveyance
on sale and every instrument by which property, whether
movable or immovable, is transferred intervivos and which is
not otherwise specifically provided for by Schedule 1-A or B
Schedule 1-8, as the case may be. "Lease" has been defined
under section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act and also in
section 2 sub section (16) of the Indian Stamp Act 1899,
According to section 2 sub section (16) of the Indian Stamp
Act, "Lease" means a lease of immovable property and c
includes a Patta, a kabuliyat or any instrument by which tolls of
any description are let, any writing on an application for lease
intended to signify that the application is granted and finally any
instrument by which mining lease is granted in respect of minor
minerals as defined in clause (e) of section 3 of the Mines and D
Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957.

17. From a plain reading of Section 54 and Section 105
of the Transfer of Property Act, there cannot be any doubt in
our mind that in case of a lease, there is a partial transfer and
the right of reversion remains with the lessor. Whereas in case E
of a sale, there must be an absolute transfer of ownership and
not some rights only as in the case of a lease. Therefore, it is
to be considered whether the document in question, which was
presented for registration, was a partial transfer and
accordingly, it was a lease, or whether it involved any outright F
sale therein. As noted herein earlier, a lease deed was
executed by the lessor in favour of the co-operative societies
and its members. It is an admitted position that the lessor
namely Naida Authorities had entered into the lease agreement
with the co-operative societies and their members, being G
lessees and the sub-lessees respectively, and the sub-lessees
further entered into the agreements with the assignees
(members of the appellant association). Such b.eing the
position, it is amply clear to us that the document in question
presented for registration before the registration officer was, H
132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

A in fact, a lease and the transfer to the members of the ~

association was an assignment of the leasehold rights. It cannot
be doubted that the demised land was merely an enjoyment of
the land and not transfer of the ownership.

B 18. In order to appreciate whether a document is a sale
or a lease, reference can be made to the case of Byramjee
Jeejeebhoy (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1965 SC
590), where this Court formulated the following principles for
determination of the aforesaid question:
c "Such a grant cannot be regarded as a lease, for a lease
contemplates any right for a transfer of a right in a
consideration price paid or promised or service or other
things of value to be rendered periodically or on specified
again to the transferor. The grant does not purport to
D demise a right of enjoyment of land. It confers right of
ownership in then land. There is gain no contractual right
reserved. It is specifically or by implication to determine
the right. The reservation and reversion remained and
remains yearly and runs, years and profits of all lands
E determine and property in the premise is of nature of a
restriction upon the said transfer and does not restrict the
equality of the said. The rent to be demanded was again
not stipulated as consideration for the grant of the right to
enjoy the land but expressly in consideration of granting ,j

F freedom from liability to pay assessment." [Emphasis
supplied]
19. The High Court in the present case decided that the
document given for registration contained a composite deed
of lease as well as a deed of sale. Therefore, both Article 63
G as well as Article 23 of the said Act would apply. We cannot
agree with these observations of the Division Bench of the High
Court. As mentioned earlier, the said document consists of a
single deed of assignment of lease. The Division Bench
construed the transfer of the land as an assignment of lease
H
RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, NOIDA v. 133
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.)
whereas the transfer of the building appurtenant thereto to be A
through a deed of sale. It appears to us that the High Court has
clearly not interpreted the true essence of the lease deed
executed between the lessor and the lessees. The learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has brought to our
notice that the said lease deeds categorically provided that not B
only the land but the appurtenants attached thereto are also
governed by its covenants as per para "k" of the said deed
which states that every transfer, assignment, relinquishment,
mortgage or sublet of the property shall be bound by the
covenants of the deed along with the assignee being c
answerable to the Noida authorities in all respects. The
appellant has also brought to our notice that para "g" of the said
deed states that the lessee/ sub lessee would only be allowed
to make any alterations in the building with the prior permission
of the authority and would also be liable of any deviations from 0
the permission obtained is brought to light. Moreover, the
concerned lease deed specifically provides for a lease of 99
years of the land along with its appurtenances thereto with the
right of reversion. So it is clear from the above-mentioned
provision that the land along with its appurtenants would be E
reversed back to the lessor after the stipulated period. The
alleged document is therefore a transfer of the assignment of
lease and not an outright sale of its appurtenants. The learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4 (being the
Noida Authorities) had contended that the lessee or the sub
lessee have absolute rights over the buildings constructed by F
them and hence the lessor has no right over them. Therefore,
the lessee or the sub-lessee can transfer such buildings by way
of an outright sale and the same cannot be the subject matter
of an assignment of lease. We are in a position to accept this
submission of the Noida Authorities. It is clear from para (b) of G
section 111 of the lease deed executed between Noida and the
sub-lessees that:

"At the time of re-entry the demised premises shall not
have been occupied any building constructed by the sub- H
134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 6 S.C.R.

A lessee therein the sub lessee shall within a period of three
months from the date of re-entry, removes from the
demised premises all erections or buildings, fixtures and
things which at any time and during the said terms shall
be affixed or set up within or upon the said premises and
B leave the said premises in as good a condition as it was
on the date of demise, in default whereof the same shall
pecome the property of the lessor without payment of any
compensation to the lessee/ sub lessee for the land and
the building fixtures and things thereon, but upon the sub
c lessee removing the erection buildings, fixtures and things
within the period hereinbefore specified, the demised
premises shall be re-allotted and the lessee/ sub lessee
may be paid such amounts as may works out in
...
accordance .......
D 20. Therefore, the only question which comes to our mind
is that if the lessee or the sub lessee has an absolute right over
the constructions constructed by him and he can transfer it by
an out right sale and not through an assignment of lease as
contended by the Noida Authorities, the lease deed would not
E have provided for such a clause wherein the Noida authorities
have a right over the buildings and the appurtenants on the land
in case of any failure of the sub-lessee to remove such
constructions at the time of re-entry. Thus the said lease deed
specifically provides for a right of reversion to the land and
F appurtenances thereto including buildings, on the termination .
or expiry of the lease. It is thus clear that the buildings and all
other appurte,nants attached to the land become a part of the
assigned transfer through lease and not a separate sale.

G 21. Momover section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act
states that when an immovable property such as land is
transferred by way of assignment of lease, all appurtenances
thereto attached to the earth such as buildings and fixtures
thereto would also stand assigned.
H . 22. Accordingly, on a plain reading of the de_ed of
RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, NOIDA v. 135
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
~

assignment, we are of the view that the assignees became A
liable to the lessor, namely Noida on the covenants running with
the land. In conclusion, we are, therefore of the view that the
deed presented for registration was a deed of assignment.

23. Before we part with this aspect of the matter, that is to B
say, whether the document/instrument was in fact a deed of
assignment or an outright sale, we must also keep in mind that
the nomenclature to the document of assignment cannot be said
to be determining factor in deciding whether a particular deed
or document was a lease or a deed of assignment. In Madras
Refinery Ltd. v. C.S. [AIR 1977 SC 500], it was held that in
c
order to decide whether a particular document is a lease or a
deed of assignment, one has to look at the substance of the
·, deed of assignment to the document and not the nomenclature.
Therefore, it must be held that no importance can be given to
the nomenclature to the document. Although some of the D
members of the association had termed the document as a
deed of sale' or transfer cum sale deed instead of as a deed
of assignment, it remains as a deed of assignment as has been
noted above by us.
E
.. 24. Keeping the above position in mind, we, therefore,
would deal with the question as to whether Article 63 of
. Schedule 1B of the Stamp Act, as applicable to the State of
• UP will apply to the document in question, or whether Article
23 of the Stamp Act will be applicable in the present case. F
Article 63 deals with transfer of lease by way of assignment and
provides that in such a case, the duty that would be payable is
the same duty that would be payable in case of conveyance
(Article No. 23) for a consideration equal to the amount of
consideration for the transfer. A plain reading of Article 63 of
G
the Schedule 1-B to the Stamp Act would, however, show that
the stamp duty chargeable to a document is not on the market
value of the property but on consideration indicated in the
same. It is only the rate of duty, which is to be taken from Article
23. Therefore, if Article 63 of the Stamp Act is to be applied,
H
136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

A duty shall be paid on the consideration of the amount of
consideration shown in the deed itself and not on the market
value of the land or the construction thereon. Therefore, it is
clear from a reading of Article 63 that it would apply in case of
a transfer of lease by way of an assignment and Article 23
B applies in case of a conveyance by way of sale. Article 63 in
clear terms mentions that in case of an assignment, the duty
that would be payable is the same duty as conveyance for a
consideration equal to the amount of the consideration for the
transfer. Thus it is clear that the duty is not calculated on the
c market value but on the amount of consideration mentioned in
the deed itself. It is expedient to have a look at the Stamp Acts
as applicable to the State of Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of
Pondicherry for elaborating our point made above. From the
Stamp Act of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, we find that Article
63 as applicable to the same provides that in case of
0
assignment by way of lease, the duty that would be payable is
the duty as a conveyance for a market value equal to the
amount of the consideration for the transfer. Therefore, it is
clear that in these areas, a clear intention has been expressed
that duty should be payable for a market value equal to the
E amount of the consideration for the transfer whereas if we refer
Article 63 as applicable to the State of UP, it mentions that duty
would be payable for a consideration equal to the amount of
the consideration for the transfer. The legislature expressly has
specified therefore that the stamp duty payable in case of an
F assignment would not be calculated on the market value of the
property but on the consideration set forth in the deed itself.

25. In view of the above observation, we may note that it
was not open to the registering officer to embark upon an
G enquiry into the market value of the land or the building in view
of the fact that it is only the leasehold rights which are only
transferred by way of assignment by the document/instrument
presented for registration.
26. Section 47 A would be applicable only when Article
H
RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, NOIDA v. 137
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [TARUN CHATIERJEE, J.]

-~ 23 is applicable. In case Article 63 applies, the registration A
officer does not have any jurisdiction to enquire into the market
value of a property under Section 47 A of the said Act. It is to
be noted that the power tmder Section 47 A of the Act can be
exercised in respect of an instrument presented for registration
on which duty must be charged on its rnarket value. Thus B
Section 47 A applies in case of an outright sale. Since in this
case, the instrument in question is not an out right sale but a
lease hold right, therefore, the question arises whether the
+ condition precedent mentioned in the Act has been fulfilled and,
if not, the reference under Section 47 A was invalid. Moreover, c
even if we assume that Section 47 A applies in this case; we
have to enquire whether the appellant intentionally tried to
undervalue the property in the alleged document. At this juncture,
it is necessary to again consider Section 47 A. Section 47 A
clearly provides that when the valuation shown in the agreement D
presented for registration is, according to the authorities, under
~ valued, in that case, the registering authorities are conferred
with the discretion to hold an enquiry to find out if the duty
chargeable on the market value of the property is less than even
the minimum value determined in accordance with the rules
E
made under the Act. As is evident from the records placed
befora us, the appellant could not execute the sale deed
because of the failure of the respondent No.4, i.e. Naida
Authorities, to execute transfer memorandum due to the orders
of injunction passed i_n pending litigations before tl1e different
courts. Therefore the appellant cannot be fauited for not F
executing the same. We have observed that the consideration
-· mentioned on the agreement to sell was absolutely adequate
with regard to the market value of the property at that time and
the same was registered before the registering authority.
Moreover, we find that there are no allegations on record G
against the appellant of under-valuation at the time of entering
i
into the agreement for transfer of the property. Therefore we
do not see any fraudulent intentions on the part of the appellant
~,
to under value the property in order to evade stamp duty paid
thereon. Since the stamp duty is to be charged on the H
f'll"~--
138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS L"-vu~] 6 S.C.R.

A consideration mentioned in the document under Article 63 of
Schedule 1-B of the Act in case of an assignment of lease, the
consideration mentioned on the document was adequate in
respect of the time when the agreement of the transfer by way
of lease was registered. It would be a different question thot
B when the said deed is to be executed, the value of the said
property has increased with the passage of time. The execution
of the deed had not been delayed due to any fault on the part
of the appellant and therefore he cannot be held liable for
intentionally suppressing the value of the property. Moreover as
c we have noticed, the appellant did not make any undue delay
in executing the deed after the Noida Authorities issued the
transfer memorandums. Therefore, considering the above
circumstances, it would be unwise to say that the appellant had
any intention to evade the stamp duty as specified under the
Act. Thus even if Section 47 A of the Act would have applied,
0
the registering officer would have no jurisdiction to refer it to
the Collector since there was never any intention on the part of •
the appellant to undervalue the property.

27. Having decided the aforesaid questions raised in this
E case, we now proceed to deal with the question as to the date
of determination of the consideration mentioned in the
document. The respondents contended that the consideration
mentioned should be the market value of the property on the
date of execution of the deed and not on the date when the
F agreement to sell the land was executed. The appellants on the •
contrary argued that the relevant date in order to calculate the
consideration would be the market value on the date when the
agreement to transfer the land was entered and registered. We
have heard the argument of the parties and referred to various
G cases dealing with this matter. In this regard, we would like to
observe that there cannot be a straightjacket formula devised
for determining the same. It would depend on the various facts
and circumstances of a particular case. In situations where the
delay is caused on the part of a party intentionally while
H executing a deed after entering into an agreement of sale or
RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, NOIDA v. 139
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [TARUN CHATIERJEE, J.]
lease as the case may be, the market value should be A
determined on the date when the deed is executed and not
when an agreement to sale the property or lease the property
had been registered. But in cases where a person is not at fault
and the delay is caused due to the lessor as in this case, the
market value should be determined on the date when the B
agreement to lease the property was entered. The lessee or
the sub lessee should not suffer due to the inability of the lessor
in handing over transfer memorandums as is required under
the lease. For this, a reference can be made to the case of S.P.
Padmavati v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others. [AIR 1997 Mad c
.. 296], which is similar to the present case and to which we are
in respectful agreement where the property could not be
registered due to no fault of the transferee and where the
consideration was frozen earlier, as in the current case. The
Madras High Court held that the relevant date for calculation D
of market value and the stamp duty is the date on which the
consideration was frozen.

28. Since in view of our discussions made herein above
that this was the case of assignment of a lease which has to
be dealt with in accordance with the provisions under Article E
63 of the Schedule 1-B of the Act which says that the duty shall
be charged as per Article 23 on the consideration mentioned
in the deed and not on the market value. So the question of
determination of the market value does not arise at all in case
of an assignment of lease which is to be charged as per Article F
63 of the Act. An enquiry under Section 47 A is also not
contemplated under the Act in case of an assignment by way
of lease unlike Article 23 of Schedule 1-B of the Act which deals
with Stamp Duty to be levied on deed of sale. It is further
observed by us that Article 63 of Schedule 1-B, being a specific G
Article, will have overriding effects on all the general clauses
of the Act. As has already been mentioned, market value can
be truly determined in case of an outright sale. The present
case does not deal with such a situation.
H
140 SUPHEME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

A 29. Going by the aforesaid discussions, we are of the view _
that the consideration to be mentioned in the assignment of
transfer by way of a lease would be the market value of the
property on the date of agreement for sale when the property
could not be registered earlier due to no fault of the members
B of the associations and when their consideration was frozen
earlier. Concerns can be raised that since Article 63 of the Act
deals with stamp duty to be levied on the consideration set forth
in an assignment by way of transfer of lease, and not on the
market value of the property to be transferred, it can be
c misused and remedy would not be available under Section 47
A to determine the market value of the property. This has to ...
be taken care of by the concerned Legislature and incorporate
suitable safeguards to prevent such misuse. For this purpose,
reference can again be made to the Stamp Acts of the State
of Tamil Nadu and Union Territo1y of Pondicherry as applicable
0
to these areas where it has been specifically mentioned in
Article 63 that in case of an assignment by way of transfer of a
lease, the duty which would be payable is the same duty as a
conveyance for a market value equal to the amount of the ,,
consideration for the transfer. Thus it is clear that there i~ an
E express intention on the part of the legislature in these areas
to charge the stamp duty on lease deeds according to the
prevalent market value unlike the Stamp Act as applicable to
the State of U.P. Therefore we cannot go beyond that which
has been provided under the statute and decide otherwise.
F Thus we reiterate that in the present circumstances, the
consideration would be that which has been mentioned in·the
lease deed at the date of the agreement to enter into the same
and there is no scope for looking into the market value of the
property under the provisions of the Act in case of an
G assignment by way of a transfer of lease under Article 63 of
the Schedule 1-B of the Act.

30. Thus accordingly, setting aside the judgment of the High
court we hold that in the instant case Article 63 of Schedule 1-
H B of the Stamp Act, as applicable to the State of U.P., which
RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, NOIDA v. 141
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [TARUN CHATIERJEE, J.]
deals with transfer of lease by way of assignment will apply to A
the documents in question. We also hold that the consideration
to be mentioned in the document would be the market value of
the property on the date when the agreement was entered into
and not when-it was presented for registration, considering the
peculiar facts of this case. B

31. In view of our discussions m_ade herein above, the
appeal is thus disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
K.K.T. Appeal allowed.