Ext.P3 order of the second respondent and Ext.P11 order by which the fifth respondent confirmed Ext.P3 order in appeal, are under challenge in the writ petition.

2. A company called M/s. Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd owned 6.63 hectors of rubber plantation. On 25.08.1988, a firm was constituted in the name and style 'Isdale Plantations', as per Ext.P6 partnership. M/s. Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd was one of the partners of the newly constituted firm. As per the terms of the partnership, the company brought the said item of property into the stock of the firm. Consequent thereto, the mutation of the property was also changed to the name of the firm. Ext.P6 partnership was reconstituted as per Ext.P8 deed by which M/s. Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd retired from the firm and the rest of the partners continued as partners. On 20.11.2012, the firm 'Isdale Plantations' sold the said property to the petitioner as per Ext.P1 sale deed for a total consideration of Rs 13,56,000/-. However, when Ext.P1 document was presented for registration, the Sub Registrar entertained a doubt as to the correctness of the stamp duty paid on the document and consequently, impounded