In Ratna Shankar Dwivedi v. State
of U.P., 2012 (116) RD 17 it was held as under:
term ‘market value’ has not been defined under the Act. However there are some
precedents laying down certain guidelines as to how and in what manner a market
value would be determined. The consensus opinion is that the market value of
any property is the price which the property would fetch or would have fetched
if sold, in the open market, if sold by a willing seller, unaffected by the
special need of a particular purchaser. It is interesting to note that the Act
provides first for determination of minimum value of the property and further
says that if the market value of the property set forth in the instrument is
less than the minimum value determined under the Act, in such case before
registering the instrument the registering authority shall refer the instrument
to Collector for determination of market value of the property and the proper
duty payable thereon and when the Collector determines market value of the
property thereafter the parties shall proceed accordingly. Therefore, a market
value of the property in all cases cannot be said to be higher than the alleged
minimum value determined under the rule by the concerned authority, in as much
as, it is only a kind of guideline provided to the authorities for the purpose
of considering as to whether the proper stamp duty is being paid by setting
forth true market value of the property in question in the instrument. The
various provisions with respect to minimum value etc. are only in aid and
assistance of the authorities to find out true amount of consideration on which
the parties have entered into transaction so that the correct duty is collected
It has also been repeatedly held
that once a document is registered and stamp duty is paid, burden to prove that
the value mentioned in the instrument was less than the market value is upon
Collector. Ganga Dhar Gupta v. CCRA, 2019 (4) AWC 3587.
To put binding effect and the essentials of a family settlement in a concretized form, the matter may be educed into the form of following propositions:
(1) The family settlement must be bona fide one so as to resolve family disputes and rival claims by a fair and equitable division or allotment of properties between the various members of the family.
(2) The said settlement must be voluntary and should not be induced by fraud, coercion or undue influence.
(3) The family arrangement may be oral even in which case no registration is necessary.
(4) It is well settled that registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangements are reduced into writing. Here also, a distinction should be made between a document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the document and a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of the record or for information of the Court for making necessary mutation. In such a case the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights in immovable properties and therefore does not fall within the mischief of Section 17(2) of the Registration Act and is, therefore, not compulsorily registrable.
(5) The members who may be parties to the family arrangement must have some antecedent title, claim or interest, even a possible claim in the property which is acknowledged by the parties to the settlement. Even if one of the parties to the settlement has not title but under the arrangement the other party relinquishes all its claims or titles in favour of such a person and acknowledges him to be the sole owner, then the antecedent title must be assumed and the family arrangement will be upheld and the courts will find no difficulty in giving assent to the same.
(6) Even if bona fide dispute, present or possible, which may not involve legal claims are settled by a bona fide family arrangement which is fair and equitable is final and binding on the parties to the settlement. Smt. Rama Devi v. Mahendra Pal, 2016 (114) ALR 852.