Judgment :- This application has been filed by the Sub Registrar of Adyar contending as follows: (i) The applicant is a third party and not a party in the Civil Suit which ended in compromise. As per the Memorandum of Compromise Decree ordered by this Court on 22.3.2005 in Kottivakkarn Revenue Village comprised in S. Nos. 281/2,4 and 6, 1 acre 93 cents in para 12 of the order it is stated that "Sale consideration at the rate of Rs. 72, 00, 000/- per acre which in the circumstances of the case is fair consideration taking into account" and in para 19 of the order "Sub-Registrar of Adyar, shall obey the order and register the Sale deed executed by the parties and presented on 14.6.2005. (ii) The value fixed per acre by this Court comes to about Rs. 72 lakhs for which only the parties have paid the stamp duty. But the present value of the suit property will be 10 times than the value made in the compromise decree. Hence it is very essential to verify as to whether the fair consideration value has to be taken into consideration or whether the value as fixed by this Court in the compromise decree has to be accepted while calculating the stamp duty. (iii) The sale consideration value does not reflect the prevailing market value and if it is not clarified the same may result in loss of revenue to the Government. The details of the value are given below: - (iv) The applicant prays this Court to clarify the portion of the order in respect of paragraph 12 relating to sale consideration per acre for the suit property governed by the compromise decree. 2. The Proprietor of the 13th and 14th respondent and 12th and 13th defendant in the suit has filed a counter Affidavit, wherein he has contended as follows: (i) It is false that the value of the property will be 10 times than the value made in the compromise decree. The plaintiff-Bank filed the suit against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 37,60,608/-. The claim of the plaintiff-Bank was that the properties of the defendants were given as collateral security. The sixth defendant Ayesha Haque and the seventh defendant S.A. Hakim were the owners of the properties situate at Kottivakkam Village comprised in S.Nos. 281/2 and 281/6 measuring about 2.53 acres and S.Nos. 37,60,608/-. The claim of the plaintiff-Bank was that the properties of the defendants were given as collateral security. The sixth defendant Ayesha Haque and the seventh defendant S.A. Hakim were the owners of the properties situate at Kottivakkam Village comprised in S.Nos. 281/2 and 281/6 measuring about 2.53 acres and S.Nos. 281/2 and 281/6 measuring about 1.93 acres altogether measuring about 4.46 acres., However, since Ayesha Haquewas in the United States of America, she came to know about the Bank's suit only in December 1995 and also came to know that the suit ended in compromise dated 28.4.1995. As per the decree on 11.9.1995 the Bank received a sum of Rs.90,00,000/- from the 13th defendant and entered full satisfaction in the suit. Hence the sixth defendant filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree and other application for interim injunction etc., against the plaintiff and the 13th defendant and others. By order dated 30.7.1997 the compromise decree was set aside as it will not bind the 6th defendant and it was open to her to deal with her share of the property. The plaintiff-Bank filed OSA Nos. 205 to 224 of 2000 and on 18.8.2000 the order setting aside the compromise decree was stayed. Thus, raced with bitter litigation from 1996, the parties after discussions decided to compromise the matter once and for all. In the year 1995 the entire property was valued at Rs.90,00,000/- and the 13th defendant paid the sum of Rs.90 lakhs to the Bank pursuant to the earlier Compromise Decree dated 28.4.1995. (ii) Taking into consideration the plethora of applications and the bitter litigation, the plaintiff entered into a compromise memo with the sixth defendant and other defendants. The plaintiff being a Nationalised Bank no charge of fraud can be made against them in respect of valuation of the property. There was no willful under valuation of subject of transfer with fraudulent intent to evade payment of proper stamp duty. (iii) There is no jurisdiction vested in the Registering Authorities to invoke Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. There is no ground for invoking Section 47-A of the aid Act in this case. The guideline value cannot be pressed into service in respect of the sale. It is a subject mater of the Court proceedings of 19 years and the bitter litigation which had ensued between the parties. There is no ground for invoking Section 47-A of the aid Act in this case. The guideline value cannot be pressed into service in respect of the sale. It is a subject mater of the Court proceedings of 19 years and the bitter litigation which had ensued between the parties. Further the Court has already applied its mind and came to the conclusion that the sale consideration of Rs. 72 lakhs per acre was a fair consideration taking into account the act that protracted litigation have been going on for the claims and counter claims made by the parties. Under these circumstances, there is no need for any clarification and this application may be dismissed. 3. The point for consideration is: "Whether the fair consideration value has to be taken into consideration or whether the value as fixed by this Court in the compromise decree has to be accepted while calculating the stamp duty." 4. The brief facts which necessitated filing of this application by the Sub-Registrar of Adyar, Chennai are as follows: (a) The properties concerned in this application belong to 6th and 7th defendants in the suit, namely Ayesha Haque and S.A. Hakim. The properties were given as collateral security to the plaintiff-Bank, which resulted in the filing of the suit C.S. No. 476 of 1986 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 36,60,608/-. The suit ended in a compromise decree dated 28.4.1995. Since the 6th defendant Ayesha Haque was residing in the United States, she was not aware of the Bank's suit or the compromise decree. As per the compromise decree, dated 28.4.1995, on 11.9.1995, the 13th defendant paid Rs.90,00,000/- to the plaintiff-first respondent-Bank and entered full satisfaction in the suit. The 6th defendant filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree and other applications for interim injunction etc., against the plaintiff first respondent Bank and 13th defendant and others. By an order dated 30.7.1999, the compromise decree was set aside on the ground that it will not bind the 5th defendant and it was open to her to deal with her share of the property. The plaintiff-first respondent Bank filed O.S.A. No. 205 to 224 of 2000 and on 18.8.2000, the order setting aside the compromise decree was stayed. By an order dated 30.7.1999, the compromise decree was set aside on the ground that it will not bind the 5th defendant and it was open to her to deal with her share of the property. The plaintiff-first respondent Bank filed O.S.A. No. 205 to 224 of 2000 and on 18.8.2000, the order setting aside the compromise decree was stayed. (b) Taking into consideration the plethora of applications and bitter litigation, the plaintiff entered into a compromise with the 6th defendant and other defendants and a compromise decree was passed by this Court on 22.3.2005 and the value of the properties were fixed at Rs.72,00,000/- per acre, for which the parties have paid stamp duty. According to the applicant, the present value of the suit properties will be ten times more than the value made in the compromise decree and hence it has become essential to verify whether fair consideration value has to be taken into consideration or whether the value as fixed by this Court in the compromise decree has to be accepted while calculating the stamp duty. 5. Mr. A. L. Somayaji, learned Additional Advocate-General, appearing for the applicant would contend that in pursuance of the compromise decree and the orders of this Court dated 13.6.2005, the parties have entered into Documents Nos. 1334/2005, 1335/2005 and 1336/2005, received the value of Rs.72,00,000/-, per acre, whereas on the same date, viz., on 14.6.2005, the same property registered under Document No. 1335/2005 has been reconveyed in Document No. 1337/2005 for a sale consideration of Rs.6,96,96,000/- viz., nearly Rupees Three crores per acre, which would show the under valuation by the respondents/defendants. 6. Learned Additional Advocate-General further contended that in the compromise decree, the Government is not a party and therefore the decree will not bind the Government. In support of the said contention, the learned Additional Advocate-General pressed into service a single Judge judgment of this Court in P. Thiagasundaram v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1991 Mad. 82 , wherein it is held that in an application where the Government is not a party, the order as regards the market value is not binding on the registering authorities and therefore a reference made under Section 47A cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or illegal. As far as this case is concerned, the Government is not a party to the compromise decree before the Civil Court. 7. As far as this case is concerned, the Government is not a party to the compromise decree before the Civil Court. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Habibulla Basha, learned senior counsel would contend that the subject matter of the Court proceedings is 19 years old resulting in bitter litigation between the parties, that the Court has already applied its mind and came to the conclusion that the sale consideration of Rs.72,00,000/- per acre was a fair consideration taking into account the acts that protracted the litigation have been going on for the claims and counter claims made by the parties and therefore, there is no need for any clarification as sought for by the Sub-Registrar of Adyar. 8. Learned senior counsel further contends that in pursuance of the earlier compromise decree dated 28.4.1995, on 11.9.1995 a sum of Rs.90,00,000/- was paid by the 13th defendant to the plaintiff-first respondent-Bank and even as per the then prevailing nationalised Bank's rate of interest, for the last 10 years, the 13th defendant-purchaser of the property has lost more than a crore of rupees as interest. The learned senior counsel further contends that in the various applications in Company matters when properties are sold in public auction, this Court time and again has directed the Sub-Registrars of the concerned areas to register the properties for the highest bid value sold in the public auction irrespective of guide line value or market value. 9. Learned senior counsel further contends that no fraud has been charged against any of the parties in the application, because the first respondent-defendant is a nationalised Bank and therefore there is no question of under valuing the properties. Learned counsel would rely upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Padmavathy v. State of Tamil Nadu 1997 (2) LW 579 wherein Hon'ble the Chief Justice K.A. Swami and AR. Lakshmanan, J., (as His Lordship then was) have held as follows: "12. We accordingly, answer Point No.1 as follows: "... Power under Section 47-A of the Act can only be exercised when the Registering Officer has reason to believe that the market value of the property, which is the subject of conveyance, has not been truly set forth, with a view to fraudulently evade payment of proper stamp duty. We accordingly, answer Point No.1 as follows: "... Power under Section 47-A of the Act can only be exercised when the Registering Officer has reason to believe that the market value of the property, which is the subject of conveyance, has not been truly set forth, with a view to fraudulently evade payment of proper stamp duty. Mere lapse of time between the date of agreement and the execution of the document will not be the determining factor that the document is undervalued and such circumstance by itself is not sufficient to invoke the power under Section 47-A of the Act, unless there is lack of bona fides and fraudulent attempt on the part of the parties to the document to undervalue the subject of transfer with a view to evade payment of proper stamp duty... ". 13. Point No. 2. It is not the case of the respondents in the writ petition that there is an attempt on the part of the parties to the document to evade stamp duty and because of that the value of the property mentioned in the document requires to be re-determined. There is no whisper about the lack of bonafides on the part of the parties to the transaction in question. This is a case in which the owner of the property had voluntarily agreed to sell for a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- and the petitioner had agreed to purchase it for the aforesaid sum. The agreement of sale was also executed on 11.2.1985. It is also not in dispute that as the vendor did not perform his, part of the contract and he committed breach of, the agreement, the petitioner was compelled to approach the Civil Court in a suit for specific performance in C.S. No.245 of 1986 on the file of the original side of this Court, which after contest was decreed. It may also be pointed out here that there was no delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court for specific performance, inasmuch as the agreement of sale was entered into on 11. 2.1985, whereas the suit came to be filed in the year 1986 itself and the same came to be decreed on 13.6.1989 and the appeal was also disposed of on 28.8.1980. 'In the plaint also the sale consideration was stated and Court-fee was paid on that amount. 2.1985, whereas the suit came to be filed in the year 1986 itself and the same came to be decreed on 13.6.1989 and the appeal was also disposed of on 28.8.1980. 'In the plaint also the sale consideration was stated and Court-fee was paid on that amount. It was not even the case of the defendants in the suit that there was under valuation. As suck there was no circumstance whatsoever to cast any doubt on the bonafides of the parties to the document. It is also relevant to point out that in this case the delay is also not much as within a period of four years. Not only the suit but the appeal also has been disposed of. Thus, the consideration for the sale agreed to is voluntary and there is no delay in obtaining and executing the decree on the part of the petitioner. Immediately after the disposal of the appeal, the execution petition also came to be filed, it is in this background and also in the light of the finding recorded on Point No.1 as to when and under what circumstances Section 47-A of the Act can be exercised, we have to examine whether in a case like this it is the value agreed to by the parties for sale of the property to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the stamp duty payable on the document of conveyance or the market value of the property, as may be determined on the basis of the market value prevailing on the date of execution and registration of the sale deed. 14. In Collector of Nilgiris v. Mahavir Plantations Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1982 Mad. 138 Section 47-A of the Stamp Act came up for consideration. It was held, thus: "The valuation guidelines prepared by the Revenue Officials at the instance of the Board of Revenue were avowedly intended merely to assist the Sub-Registrars to find out, prima facie, whether the market value set out in the instruments has been set forth correctly. The guidelines were not intended as a substitute for market value or to foreclose the inquiry by the (word missing) under Section 47-A. The valuation guidelines were not prepared on the basis of any open hearing of the parties concerned or of any documents. The guidelines were not intended as a substitute for market value or to foreclose the inquiry by the (word missing) under Section 47-A. The valuation guidelines were not prepared on the basis of any open hearing of the parties concerned or of any documents. They were based on data gathered broadly with reference to classification of lands, grouping of lands and the like. This being so, the Collector acting under Section 47-A cannot regard the valuation guidelines as the last word on the subject of market value. To do so would be to surrender his statutory obligation to determine market value on the basis of evidence, which is a judicial or a quasi-judicial function which he has to perform." It was also further held that the market value, under Section 47-A would not be the market value, as determined under the Land Acquisition Act. Open market is an objective standard which lays down that the market value to be adopted by the Collector and the market value which the parties are required to adopt in their instruments must be a fair market value in the sense that there are no economic shackles or inhibitions of any kind which prevent the price level from finding its level. Thus the conception of open market rules out, at one end, fancy prices, and, at the other end, distress sales. Economic equilibrium is the hall-mark of open market. xxxxxxxxxx 19. It is not in each and every -case, the Registering Officer is expected to deal with the instrument under Section 47-A of the Act, but it is only when the Registering Officer has reason to believe that the instrument has been undervalued or has not been truly set forth in the instrument. In the case of instrument executed pursuant to the decree, there is no scope for doubting the bonafides of the parties. Of course, we do not rule out other possibility of unscrupulous persons, with a view to evade payment of proper stamp duty, creating agreements to sell for a very low sum and then approaching the Court for specific performance and obtaining a decree for specific performance by mutual consent or without much contest, and thereafter presenting the documents for registration pursuant to the decree passed for specific performance. In such cases, under-valuation would be apparent and it would also be open to the Registering Officer, after being satisfied as to lack of bonafides and fraudulent attempt on the part of transfer, to invoke the power under Section 47-A of the Act. But, such a process or proceedings cannot, in the normal course, be pursued in all cases, it is only if the Registering Officer has reason to believe that the consideration amount has not been truly set forth in the document. 20. We have already pointed out that, in the instant case, there is no such plea raised by the respondents or even by the Registering Officer, who had passed the order under Section 47-A of the Act. There is no finding recorded that there was lack of bona fides or any reason to believe that there was under valuation. The Registering Officer has purported to exercise his power in the instant case under Section 47-A of the Act to determine the market value only on the ground that there is a time gap between the agreement of sale and the date of execution of the sale deed and in the meanwhile the value of the property has gone up, without there being no lack of bonafide on the part of the parties to the document and no attempt on their part to fraudulently evade payment of proper stamp duty. 21. This aspect may be viewed from another angle. It may be that the consideration mentioned in the document does not conform to the market value of the property as on the date of execution of the sale deed. But in the case where the value of the property goes down, it would not be open to the parties to mention a lesser sum than the one for which they agreed to purchase. This aspect is also important to determine whether the chargeable event is the instrument or the market value. xxxxxxxxxx 23. But in the case where the value of the property goes down, it would not be open to the parties to mention a lesser sum than the one for which they agreed to purchase. This aspect is also important to determine whether the chargeable event is the instrument or the market value. xxxxxxxxxx 23. Therefore, we are of the view that in the case of instrument of conveyance executed pursuant to the decree for specific performance passed by the Civil Court, in which there is no allegation of under valuation or lack of bonafides, the mere fact that there is a time gap between the agreement of sale and the execution of the document, is not sufficient to the Registering Officer to invoke his power under Section 47-A of the Act, unless there are reasons to believe that there is an attempt on the part of the parties to the instrument to deliberately undervalue the subject of transfer with a view to evade payment of proper stamp duty." 10. The above judgment was rendered in a case in which the suit was filed based on the sale agreement for specific performance of the agreement. After confirmation of the judgment and decree passed in the suit the decree holder filed E.P., to execute the decree with a direction to the defendants to execute the sale deed or to have the sale deed executed through the Commissioner appointed by the Court. In the document of conveyance, consideration of Rs.2,75,000/- was mentioned and the document was presented before the Sub-Registrar and was registered. But the Sub-Registrar refused to deliver the document on the ground that the value mentioned in the document was too low and it did not agree with the market value. Therefore, as per Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, the market value was determined at Rs.7,06,312.60/- and additional stamp duty of Rs.56,077/- was directed to be paid on the basis of the market value, against which the said writ petition was filed and their Lordships have held that stamp duty paid as per the agreement for Rs.2,75,000/- is sufficient and quashed the order of the Sub-Registrar. 11. However, it is pertinent to note that their Lordships have given a caution in paragraph 4 of the judgment which reads as follows: "4. 11. However, it is pertinent to note that their Lordships have given a caution in paragraph 4 of the judgment which reads as follows: "4. Learned Government Pleader was specifically asked to file a counter affidavit as to the consequences on the revenue and also on the question as to whether stamp duty on the document of conveyance should be paid on the amount of consideration mentioned in the document or on the market value, in cases where sale deeds are executed pursuant to the decree passed by the Civil Court, in a suit for specific performance, we specifically make it clear that our decision relates to only execution of sale deeds, pursuant to the decree for specific performances passed." (emphasis supplied) 12. According to the learned Additional Advocate-General, this suit is a Bank's suit filed for recovery of money and not a specific performance suit and therefore the judgment referred to above is not binding. 13. In Varadharaju, A.E., v. Selvaraju and 2 others 1996 (2) LW 716 this Court in a case where, pursuant to the decree in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell property, the Execution Court sent the document of sale executed by it stating the value as Rs.12,000/- as per the decree to the Sub-Registrar for registration. The Sub-Registrar valued the property at Rs.50,000/- and directed the purchaser to produce a certificate from the Income Tax officer. On receipt of such communication, A memo was filed by the revision petitioner decree-holder (plaintiff) seeking a direction from the Court to the Sub-Registrar to register the sale deed on the market value of Rs.12,000/-, having regard to the date of the agreement in favour of the petitioner. The lower Court passed the impugned order holding that the sale deed had been prepared on the basis of unilateral value given by the decree holder and the Registering Authority is competent to question it, if it was found to be under-valued, and the petitioner was directed to comply with the requirements as required by the Registering Authority. The Revision was filed against the said order. In the above circumstances, this Court held that: "The suit is for passing a decree praying for direction to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.12,000/- only and it has been so decreed. The Revision was filed against the said order. In the above circumstances, this Court held that: "The suit is for passing a decree praying for direction to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.12,000/- only and it has been so decreed. While that is so, simply because it had been executed some time in February, 1984, by the Court and was sent for registration, it is not open for the Registering Authority to fix the market value of the property conveyed at Rs.50,000/- and insist on production of Income-tax Certificate. It has to be held that the market value has to be deemed to be only Rs.12,000/- and it has been made clear that the price had been paid even on the date of agreement. In such circumstances, the order passed by the District Munsif has to be set aside and the Sub-Registrar, Mallasamudram who is the Registering Authority is to be directed to register the document without insisting on production of any Income-tax Certificate on payment of requisite stamp duty of Rs.12,000/- and also the necessary registration charges." 14. Similarly, in Jayaraman v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem, 1996 (2) LW 719 , this Court in a case where a sale deed was executed by the Court in a suit for specific performance, a direction was issued by he Revenue Divisional Officer on the basis of the report of the Sub-Registrar that it must bear stamp on the market value of the property as on the date of presentation and affirmed by the Subordinate Judge, on appeal by way of Civil Revision, this Court held that: "In this case, the Court has executed the sale deed on the basis of the decree in a suit for specific performance. The view taken by the Court below affirming the view of the Revenue Divisional Officer that the instrument must be valued (for stamp duty) 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 petition (plaintiff is not responsible. 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 petition (plaintiff is not responsible. 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." (emphasis supplied) 15. On the other hand, learned senior counsel Mr. Habibullah Basha, appearing for the respondents would contend that in a case where the Registering Officer has not pleaded fraud or lack of bona fides regarding undervaluation, Section 47-A of the Stamp Act cannot be invoked by the Registering Officer. 16. In this case, the applicant/Sub-Registrar has not produced any proof for the guideline value or the market value of the properties, except Document No.1337 of 2005, wherein the value of the document is mentioned nearly Rs.3 crores per acre. The 6th defendant could get clear title only after the repeal of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act as per the order dated 18.12.2000 in W.P. Nos.29056 and 29057 of 2002. The value of the property was fixed at Rs.90,00,000/- i.e., Rs.20.20 lakhs per acre by this Court in the year 1995 as per the compromise decree which had been paid and the present properties have been registered in 2005 by valuing the properties at Rs.72,00,000/- per acre in terms of the subsequent decree. 17. Admittedly, there is no allegation of collusion between the parties. Not only disputes arose between the plaintiff-Bank and defendants, various disputes were going on between the defendants themselves. Various applications seeking interlocutory orders had been hotly contested between the parties and only due to the prospect of never ending litigation, the compromise was entered. No collusion can be attributed to the plaintiff which is a nationalised Bank and there was no fraudulent intent to evade the payment of stamp duty. 18. Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned Additional Advocate-General contended that on no account would the Court lend a helping hand to the collusive litigants to evade stamp duty and cause huge loss to the exchequer. He further argued that the collusive nature of the compromise decree can be gathered from the unusual wordings of the compromise decree. 18. Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned Additional Advocate-General contended that on no account would the Court lend a helping hand to the collusive litigants to evade stamp duty and cause huge loss to the exchequer. He further argued that the collusive nature of the compromise decree can be gathered from the unusual wordings of the compromise decree. By including the direction to the Sub-Registrar to register the properties, the parties to the suit have travelled beyond the scope of the litigation. 19. Per contra, Mr. Habibullah Basha, learned senior counsel appearing for the contesting respondents has vehemently argued that the Sub-Registrar of Assurances had no locus standi to question the terms of the compromise which have been given effect to by the parties. Moreover, this Court has considered the terms of the compromise and incorporated the same into the decree. The learned senior counsel has also contended that the compromise terms were not agreed only with a view to avoid the payment of stamp duty. The question of valuation of the property has arisen only because of the value agreed by the plaintiff-Bank and there can be no malafide motive that can be attributed to the acceptance of such compromise terms by the plaintiff-Bank. He has also argued that the Sub-Registrar cannot invoke the provision of Section 47-A of the Stamp Act and reliance cannot be placed upon the guideline value. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Padmavathy (supra) was relied upon to show that the "transaction value fixed under the decree of Court ought to be accepted by the Registering Authorities and that the guideline value or the present day market value cannot dictate the collection of stamp duty. 20. I have given careful thought to the arguments advanced at length by the parties. It is not in dispute that there has been a series of protracted litigation with one of the parties successfully over turning the compromise decree passed by this Court and the plaintiff Bank seeking transfer of the suit itself to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. On top of that, the intending purchaser viz., 12th and 13th defendants in the suit had collected the original title documents from the plaintiff-Bank directly upon payment of a sum of Rs.90,00,000/- as long back as on 11.9.1995. On top of that, the intending purchaser viz., 12th and 13th defendants in the suit had collected the original title documents from the plaintiff-Bank directly upon payment of a sum of Rs.90,00,000/- as long back as on 11.9.1995. Thus the claim of the plaintiff-Bank was discharged in full more than 10 years ago and yet, the litigation between the parties did not come to a close naturally. The passage of time due to the persisting litigation has obviously persuaded the defendants to settle the matter with the intending purchaser offering to pay at the rate of Rs. 72,00,000/- per acre. Hence taking into account the various circumstances leading to the continuance of the lis, the parties had filed the compromise memorandum into Court and prayed that the decree be passed in terms of the compromise memorandum. 21. Even in the judgment itself this Court observed that fair consideration has been paid taking into account the relevant factors. Hence there is no need to read something between the lines in this passage to conclude that there was some devious intention to evade stamp duty. Since there has been mutual distrust for several years, the parties are only too keen to see that this compromise decree is not going to be challenged in any manner as was done in the past. Similarly, it is not unusual for the purpose of recording the compromise that the Sub-Registrar be directed to register the sale deed since there could be some frivolous objections and unnecessary delay caused due to some dissatisfaction or an after thought which any parties may harbour. Merely by the inclusion of a direction to the Registering Authorities, it cannot be said that there was an intention to evade the stamp duty. Moreover, it is not the case of the applicant that any amount more than the stated consideration passed hands. 22. The decision relied on by the learned senior counsel appearing for the contesting respondents reported in Padmavathy (supra) clearly seals the issue in favour of the respondents. Moreover, it is not the case of the applicant that any amount more than the stated consideration passed hands. 22. The decision relied on by the learned senior counsel appearing for the contesting respondents reported in Padmavathy (supra) clearly seals the issue in favour of the respondents. In the said judgment their Lordships have held that: "Therefore, we are of the view that in the case of instrument of conveyance executed pursuant to the decree for specific performance passed by the Civil Court, in which there is no allegation of under-valuation or lack of bona fides, the mere fact that there is a time gap between the agreement of sale and the execution of the document, is not sufficient to the Registering Officer to invoke his power under Section 47-A of the Act, unless there are reasons to believe that there is an attempt on the part of the parties to the instrument to deliberately undervalue the subject of transfer with a view to evade payment of proper stamp duty. " 23. As regards the contention of the learned Additional Advocate-General that in Document No. 1337/2005, dated 14.6.2005, which was registered on the same date like other documents 1334,1335 and 1336 of 2005, the property dealt with in Document No. 1337/2005 has been valued at nearly Rs.3 crores per acre and when compared to the valuation showed in Documents Nos. 1334, 1335 and 1336 of 2005, it is admittedly higher. 24. The objection raised by the Sub-Registrar, Adyar who is the applicant in this application is that when the sale deeds registered as Document Nos. 1334/2005, 1335/2005 and 1336/2005, the sale consideration was shown as Rs. 72,00,000/- per acre and also all the sale deeds were registered on 14.6.2005. The applicant is aggrieved by the sale consideration of Rs.72,00,000/- per acre shown in the sale deeds as according to him they were not as per the guideline value since the very same land was conveyed at nearly Rs.3 crores per acre in the sale deed registered as Document No.1337/2005. It has to be seen the circumstances under which the sale deeds in Document Nos.1334/2005, 1335/2005 and .1336/2005 were registered. It is also apparent from the covenants contained in the said sale deeds wherein the long pending litigation has been traced. It has to be seen the circumstances under which the sale deeds in Document Nos.1334/2005, 1335/2005 and .1336/2005 were registered. It is also apparent from the covenants contained in the said sale deeds wherein the long pending litigation has been traced. It is also seen that initially a Memo of compromise was entered into on 28.4.1995 wherein the entire property was agreed to be conveyed for Rs.90,00,000/-. However, this compromise decree was set aside at the instance of Mrs.Ayesha Haque who was the 6th defendant in the suit. Thereafter various applications were filed by Mrs. Ayesha Haque and the plaintiff-Bank. The orders passed in the applications were also taken up by filing appeals. All these took almost 10 years and it was only in the year 2005 that the parties to the proceedings came to an understanding to arrive at an amicable settlement and the Vendors agreed to convey the properties at Rs.72,00,000/- per acre. It is to be remembered that earlier when the compromise decree was passed on 28.4.1995, the entire properties were valued at Rs.90,00,000/-. It was only taking into account the protracted litigation and in view of the claims and counter claims made by the parties, the sale consideration of Rs.72,00,000/- per acre was accepted by this Court as a fair consideration. As rightly contended by the learned senior counsel, this Court in Court auction sale of properties accepting the highest bid amount as the sale consideration, directs the Official Liquidator or the Commissioner, as the case may be to execute the sale deed in favour of the successful bidder. In C.A. No.2478 of 2000 in C.P. No.130/99, this Court even passed an order directing the Inspector-General of Registration to issue suitable directions for future guidance and compliance to all the Registrars and the Sub-Registrars of the Registration Department, to the effect that in the case of auction sale of the properties, belonging to the company in liquidation and where the offer is accepted by the Court in an open sale, the price accepted by the Court shall be taken as the value of the property in question for the purpose of determining the stamp duty to be paid by the purchaser, and not the value arrived at on the basis of the guideline value as there is no possibility of evasion of stamp duty in Court sales. The same analogy can also be followed in a suit ending in compromise between the parties taking into consideration of the circumstances whereby there were long pending litigations and the plaintiff who advanced the loan is a nationalised Bank and there being no allegation of fraud or lack of bona fide on the part of the parties to the transaction. (emphasis supplied) 25. On the other hand, the sale deed registered as Document No. 1337/2005 came to be registered when there was no litigation pending and there was no cloud in the title to the property. It has to be pointed out that the market value of the property has to be arrived at taking into account prevailing circumstances. Secondly, market value cannot be fixed for an earlier document based on market value shown in a subsequent document. In any event, there is nothing on record to show that the consideration shown in Document Nos. 1334, 1335, and 1336 of 2005 were deliberately under-valued and there was fraudulent evasion for the purpose of stamp duty. Market value itself is a changing factor and will depend on various circumstances and matters relevant to the consideration. The market value of the property in a particular area may have a sudden increase depending upon various factors, including the decision or announcement of the Government making the particular zone as an industrial area. Similarly there may be a sudden decrease in the market value of the property due to natural calamities. Therefore, market value is always a changing factor depending on various circumstances. No exactitude is, in the nature of things possible. In working the act, great cautions should be taken in order that it may not work as an engine of oppression. Normally the consideration stated as market value in a given instrument brought for registration should be taken to be correct unless circumstances exist which suggests fraudulent evasion as has been observed by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. TN. Chandrasekaran AIR 1974 Mad. 117 . 26. A perusal of the application filed by the applicant/Sub-Registrar would show that there is no averment that there was fraudulent evasion in arriving at the market value in the sale deeds registered as Document Nos. 1334, 1335 and 1336 of 2005. Hence there is no deliberate under-valuation of the properties. 27. Chandrasekaran AIR 1974 Mad. 117 . 26. A perusal of the application filed by the applicant/Sub-Registrar would show that there is no averment that there was fraudulent evasion in arriving at the market value in the sale deeds registered as Document Nos. 1334, 1335 and 1336 of 2005. Hence there is no deliberate under-valuation of the properties. 27. As rightly contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, the Court has to take into consideration the facts and circumstances under which the sale deeds came to be registered. In this case, the multifarious Court proceedings between the parties had lasted for nearly 19 long years. The 13th defendant has paid Rs.90,00,000/- as on 11.9.1995 to the plaintiff-Bank and he has incurred loss of nearly one crore rupees by way of interest as per the then prevailing rate of interest. No allegation of fraudulent attempt or deliberate under-valuation can be attributed to evade payment of proper stamp duty, since one of the party to the transaction is a Nationalised Bank. So also, lack of bonafide on the part of the parties also cannot be alleged against them. Admittedly, there is no averment of fraud or collusion or lack of bonafide alleged in the petition. Except Document No.1337/2005 under which the sale consideration was fixed at nearly Rs.3 crores per acre, no other proof has been produced in respect of market value of the area. In this case originally, in the year 1995, Rs.20.20 lakhs per acre was fixed and later in the year 2005, it has been enhanced to Rs.72,00,000/- per acre. As already stated, the market value may either increase or decrease depending upon various changing factors. It may be true that the market value may be on the higher side in the recent years due the Government's Information and Technology policy having been taken in respect of that area. Having taken into consideration of all these aspects only, this Court observed that the sale consideration of Rs.72,00,000/- per acre is a fair consideration. 28. In the result, this application filed by the Sub-Registrar of Adyar, is dismissed, clarifying and holding that the value of sale consideration at Rs.72,00,000/- per acre in the Documents registered as 1334, 1335 and 1336 of 2005 is a fair sale consideration talking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case. 28. In the result, this application filed by the Sub-Registrar of Adyar, is dismissed, clarifying and holding that the value of sale consideration at Rs.72,00,000/- per acre in the Documents registered as 1334, 1335 and 1336 of 2005 is a fair sale consideration talking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the Sub Registrar, Adyar, Chennai is directed to register the sale deeds as presented by the parties accepting the sale consideration as mentioned in the said documents for the purpose of determining the stamp duty to be paid by the purchaser, and not the value arrived at on the basis of the guideline value. Application dismissed.