SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(AP) 191

L.NARASIMHA REDDY
G. Dayanand – Appellant
Versus
District Registrar – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s):Domar Mundra, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s): GP for Revenue.

ORDER

The mother of the petitioner owned property, bearing Nos.9-4-65 to 68, 9-4-64/12 to 25 and 9-4-117, with cellar, ground and first floors, constructed over 513 sq. yards at Tolichowki, Hyderabad. It is stated that after the death of the mother of the petitioner, himself and his two brothers - G. Subhash and G. Satyanarayana, succeeded to it. The two brothers of the petitioner also died and the property is now owned jointly by the petitioner and the legal representatives of his brothers.

2. The petitioner submits that recently the widow of one of his brothers, by name, G. Rajasree, expressed her willingness to release 1/3rd share in the property, in case she is paid Rs.20 lakhs. The petitioner is said to have agreed for that, and accordingly, a release deed was executed by the said Rajasree, in favour of the petitioner. The document was presented before the Sub-Registrar, S.R.O., Golconda, the 2nd respondent herein, on 18-01-2008, for registration. Stamp duty of 1% was paid. The 2nd respondent, however, took the view that 3% of stamp duty is payable. Accordingly he kept the document pending registration. On 15-03-2008 he issued a notice requiring the petitioner to pay the defici















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top