Judgment :- 1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Salem in Stamp-Appeal No. 4 of 1984, dated 12-11-1986. 2. Brief facts are the following. The petitioner filed a suit, O.S. No. 791 of 1966 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Salem for specific performance of an agreement entered into between himself and one Kanniah Chettiar for the purchase of a property for a sum of Rs. 3,000/-. It is stated that the entire consideration was paid on the date of the agreement. The suit was decreed on 20-12-1968. Aggrieved by the decree, the land owner preferred an appeal and also the Second Appeal without success. Ultimately, the petitioner got the sale deed executed through the Court on 28-7-1982 and the sale deed was forwarded to the Sub Registrar for registration. The Sub Registrar after registering the document has recorded a statement to the effect that on the date of the execution of the sale, the value of the property was Rs. 87,058.50p and necessary deficit stamp papers must be furnished. On that basis, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed an order. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Sub Court as provided under Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act. The learned Subordinate Judge has upheld the view taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer that deficit stamp papers must be furnished. It is against that order of the learned Subordinate Judge, the present revision is filed. 3. Mr. R. Vedantham, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order of the learned Subordinate Judge is contrary to the spirit of Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act and also two decisions of this Court, one reported in Noorurnnissa, K v. District Collector, North Arcot (95 L.W. 284), and another in A.E. Varadharaju v. Selvaraj (C.R.P. No. 1358 of 1986, dated 5-4-1989 since reported in 1996-2-L.W. 716). Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act as amended by the Tamil Nadu Act reads as follows: “47-A. Instruments of conveyance etc., if under valued, how to be dealt with - (1) If the market value of any property which is the subject of any instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift, settlement, award or trust, as set forth in such instrument is less than even the minimum value determined in accordance with any Rules made under this Act, the Registering Officer appointed under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, shall refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon”. A careful perusal of this Section shows that if there is reason to believe that the market value of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance, exchange or gift has not been truly set forth in the instrument, the Registering Authority shall refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon. In this case as we have noticed earlier, there is no scope for doubting the market value given in the instrument. The Court has executed the instrument on the basis of the decree in a suit for specific performance. Again, the view taken by the Court below affirming the view of the Revenue Divisional Officer that the instrument must be valued on the basis of the market value on the date of execution is not correct. The suit was for specific performance of an agreement, dated 19-4-1964 and after prolonged litigation, the sale deed through Court came to be executed only on 28-7-1982. For this delay, the petitioner is not responsible. In my view, the value on the date of the agreement alone is relevant and not the value on the date of execution of the sale deed in the matter of suit for specific performance. My view is supported by the decision of P.K. Sethuraman, in C.R.P. No. 1358 of 1986, dated 5-4-1989 since reported in 1996-2-L.W. 716 learned judge has also taken the same view, applying the ratio of the decision in Noorunnissa, K v. District Collector, North Arcot (95 L.W. 284). 4. In the circumstances the order of the learned Subordinate Judge is set aside and the demand for deficit stamp papers cannot be sustained. This revision petition is allowed. No costs.