SAYED NAJAM-UL-HASSAN KAZMI, J.- This judgment will decide RFA No. 107/98 wherein judgment and decree dated 16.1.1998 of the learned Civil Judge, Lahore has been called in question.
2. The facts out of which this appeal has arisen are that the respondent No.1 (Marhaba Dawakhana) agreed to purchase a piece of land measuring 12-1/2 kanals in the Industrial Estate, Kot Lakhpat. An agreement of sale was executed on 20.4.1989. A suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale was filed which was decreed on 16.11.1991 by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore. In terms of the decree the vendor was directed to execute the sale-deed till 15.2.1992. On 13.11.1991, the sale-deed was drafted on the stamp paper which was required on the basis of sale price of Rs.32 lacs on which Corporation fee was paid @2-1/2%. The sale-deed was presented for registration but the Sub-Registrar, Model Town refused to register the same for the reason that the sale-deed should be drafted on the stamp paper on the basis of the price as per rate of the properties given in the list prepared by the Collector. The respondent challenged this order upto the level of Board of Revenue but the decision of the Sub-Registrar was not interfered with. In consequence the respondent supplied additional stamp paper and paid the additional Corporation fee and got the sale-deed registered. Later the respondent filed a suit for recovery of the amount paid towards the additional stamp duty and additional Corporation fee. It was claimed that the respondent was not liable to pay stamp according to the rate allegedly prescribed by the Collector and that the orders requiring payment of additional stamp paper as well as the additional Corporation fee were illegal and contrary to the "rules laid down by this Court. In this background the respondent claimed recovery of Rs.4,30,635/- for the additional stamp paper and Rs. 1,26,658/- paid as additional Corporation fee. In toto a decree for recovery of Rs.5,57,293/- was claimed.
3. The appellant and respondent No.2 contested the suit. After having considered evidence, the learned Civil Judge decreed the suit vide judgment dated 16.1.1998.
4. In this appeal, the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge has been assailed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the additional stamp duty was lawfully charged and therefore; no order for refund thereof could be passed. It was added that the Sub-Registrar Was not bound by the sale price given in the agreement of sale. '
6. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of the learned Trial Court and maintained that the respondent was compelled to pay the additional stamp duty and also the additional corporation fee which was violative of law, and therefore, the recovery of that amount has been lawfully allowed.
7. We have given due consideration to the admissions made and taken through the material available on the record.
8. Admittedly facts are that the respondent No.1 agreed to purchase the land measuring 12-1/2 kanals for Rs.32 lacs vide agreement dated 20.4.1989, a suit for specific performance oaf the agreement of sale was filed to enforce the agreement which was decreed on 16.10.1991, the sale- deed was prepared in execution of the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, the terms of sale as given in the agreement of sale were accepted in the decree and the respondent was found entitled to the transfer of land on payment of Rs.32 lacs as sale price. The sale-deed was prepared on a stamp paper required on the basis of sale price as Rs.32 lacs for which corporation fee @ 2- 1/2 % was paid by the respondent. The objection raised by the Sub-Registrar was that under Section 27-A of the Stamp Act the Collector had notified the rates of properties therefore, the stamp duty and also the Corporation fee should be paid in terms of the rates approved by the Collector.
9. The effect of the rates allegedly notified by the Collector under Section 27-A of the Stamp Act came up for consideration in number of cases where it was held that in the absence of Notification valuation table issued by the Collector would be of no legal effect. Reference can be made to Mst.
Sobia Hanif v. Collector, Lahore District, etc. (PLJ 1994 Lahore 80), where it was observed that the valuation table drawn by the Collector must be notified by publication in the official Gazette arid in the absence of any such notification the valuation table would be of no legal effect.
In similar situation it was observed in Muhammad Aslam v. Sub- Registrar, etc. (NLR 1994 Civil 482) that the valuation table and rates fixed by the Collector in the absence of any Notification would be of no legal effect and the parties under litigation would not be liable to pay the stamp duty on the basis of such valuation table. It was further observed that the Registrar would be bound to register documents on payment of ad valorem stamp duty mentioned in the document presented for registration.
10. On being asked, learned counsel for the appellant did not deny that no notification under Section 27-A of the Stamp Act was issued nor the valuation table was ever notified in the official Gazette in terms of the rule given in the case noted supra. This being so, the demand of Sub- Registrar for payment of additional stamp duty was unwarranted in law.
11. One of the important aspect of the case is that the agreement of sale containing terms and conditions of sale was subject-matter of the suit for specific performance in which the decree was passed by the Court, thereby holding the respondent entitled to the sale of land on payment of Rs.32 lacs as sale price. The sale price agreed by the parties with their mutual consent, keeping in view, the prevailing rates on the date of agreement, had also the blessing of the decree of the Court wherein the right to seek transfer on the payment of the sale price mentioned in the agreement was recognized. The Sub-Registrar was not competent to ignore the decree of the Court or to dictate his on terms or to direct the parties to pay the stamp duty on self-inflated rates calculated on imaginary basis. The valuation table issued by the Collector having no legal sanctity, the Sub-Registrar was duty bound to honour the decree and to register the sale-deed on the terms as-certified by the Court itself. The order requiring the respondent to pay the additional stamp duty and also to bear the liability of additional corporation fee was palpably wrong and without jurisdiction. The respondent being not liable to pay this amount had the right to seek refund/recovery thereof through the civil suit.
12. The learned Civil Judge, by taking in view the circumstances noted supra and also relying on the rule given in the precedent cases, accepted the claim and decreed the suit, which decree does not suffer from any error of law or misreading of the record.
13. At the fag end an objection was raised that the suit could be filed within one year under Article I6 of the Limitation Act. This Article had no application to the facts of this case as the amount, recovery whereof was claimed, was not realised as arrears of land revenue. The suit was instituted on 6.3.1995 while the additional stamp was received on 10.3.1995. In Karachi Parsi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Karachi Municipal Corporation (1975 SCM R 368), it was ruled that the suit claiming refund from general tax recovered by the Municipality could be filed under Article 120 of the Limitation Act within six years. The operative part of the judgment reads as follows:- 'In the present case refund was claimed from the general tax recovered by the defendant on its on account and not on account of the plaintiff. It was, therefore. Article 120 of the Limitation Act which applied and not Article 62".
In this view of the matter, the suit filed by the respondent within three years was not barred by time and the objection raised by the appellant is without substance.
14. For the reasons above, this appeal is devoid of any merit which is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their on costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.