Apparent consideration excludes incidental deed expenses, and acquisition stood where valuation findings were unrebutted.

Incidental stamp, registration and execution borne by the transferee do not form part of the apparent consideration for transfer of immovable property; only the sale price stated in the deed is relevant. On the acquisition question, the valuation findings accepted by the fact-finding authorities were treated as sufficient to attract the statutory threshold, and no rebuttal evidence was led by the transferees to displace the inference. The court found no basis to interfere with the Chapter XXA acquisition order, and the acquisition of the house was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the apparent consideration for the transfer of immovable property included the amounts spent by the transferee on stamp and registration expenses, and (ii) whether the acquisition order under Chapter XXA could be interfered with in view of the alleged calculation error and the absence of rebuttal evidence.

Issue (i): Whether the apparent consideration for the transfer of immovable property included the amounts spent by the transferee on stamp and registration expenses.

Analysis: The sale deed itself recorded that the vendor agreed to sell the house for Rs. 49,500 and that the balance of the consideration was Rs. 44,500 after an advance of Rs. 5,000. The recital that the vendees would meet the expenses and labour relating to execution of the sale deed did not form part of the sale price. Such incidental expenditure, even if borne by the purchasers, could not be treated as consideration for the transfer, and the plea was also not raised at the proper stage before the authorities below.

Conclusion: The apparent consideration was Rs. 49,500 only, and the additional stamp and registration expenses did not alter that figure.

Issue (ii): Whether the acquisition order under Chapter XXA could be interfered with in view of the alleged calculation error and the absence of rebuttal evidence.

Analysis: Even assuming the difference between the fair market value and the apparent consideration was less than what was recorded by the Tribunal, the material findings remained that the statutory threshold was attracted on the basis of the valuation accepted by the fact-finding authorities, and the transferees had led no evidence to rebut the statutory inference. The finding regarding fair market value and renovation expenses was a finding of fact, and no basis existed for appellate interference.

Conclusion: The acquisition order was sustainable and called for no interference.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on all material grounds, and the acquisition of the house under Chapter XXA stood affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Incidental expenses borne for execution of a sale deed do not constitute part of the apparent consideration, and statutory acquisition will not be disturbed where the transferee fails to rebut the inference arising from the valuation findings.

---