Collector of Madras and anr. Vs. K. Rajamanickam - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
.....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 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 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. section 47 (as applicable in u.p.,) & articles 63 & 23:assignment right in property by way of lease held, stamp duty chargeable to a document is not on the market value of the property but on consideration indicated in the same...........beyond comprehension to believe at the belated stage the horoscope evidence or dial statement; the school register was available when he entered into service which was recorded on the basis of the entries in the sslc register. volume could he spelt out of the authenticity of the present alleged entries in the school register or tc.3. the meat of the matter is that the respondent had attained superanuation on 31.1.94 even on his own date of birth as contended for. as a fact, he was superannuated on 31.1.93. by virtue of the orders of the tribunal when contempt proceedings were threatened against the officers of the appellant, subject to their filing the appeal they reinstated the respondent into service on 7.2.94 and he remained in office till the order was passed by this court on 19.9.94.....

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Admittedly, the respondent entered into service in 1958 showing his date of birth as 15.1.1935. He claims to have made an application for correction of the date of birth on 17.4.1986 which was ultimately rejected in the proceedings of the Collector dated 75.1.93. Thereafter the respondent filed the petition on 27.1.93 before the Tribunal. He attained superannuation as per the original entry in the records on 31.1.93. The Tribunal, by its order dated 23.1.1.93, while holding that his correct date of birth is 12.1.93, directed the appellant to continue the respondent in service for a period of one, year. That order is now under challenge. It is beyond comprehension to believe at the belated stage the horoscope evidence or dial statement; The school register was available when he entered into service which was recorded on the basis of the entries in the SSLC register. Volume could he spelt out of the authenticity of the present alleged entries in the school register or TC.

3. The meat of the matter is that the respondent had attained superanuation on 31.1.94 even on his own date of birth as contended for. As a fact, he was superannuated on 31.1.93. By virtue of the orders of the Tribunal when contempt proceedings were threatened against the officers of the appellant, subject to their filing the appeal they reinstated the respondent into service on 7.2.94 and he remained in office till the order was passed by this court on 19.9.94 suspending the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, for seven months the respondent had continued in office. For the period for which he had continued, there shall be a direction not to recover any amount paid to him during that period. In other words, his retirement benefits should be computed as if he had retired on 31.1.93 only.

4. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.