1. The above writ petitions filed by the same person, are concerned with an identical issue. The subject matter arises from different transactions by a Company; named M/S Heera Summer Holiday Homes (P) Ltd. The petitioner is the Managing Director (M.D) of the Company, which owned certain properties having substantial extents and executed instruments styled as settlement deeds, the stamp duty leviable in which, is the issue arising. Each of the documents need not be referred to, suffice it to notice that the Company settled different extents of property on the three children of the petitioner. The consideration shown in all the documents, was love and affection towards the respective beneficiary.

2. The documents were produced for registration before the Sub Registrar, the 4th respondent herein. When the documents were produced, initially registration fee was levied on the premise of it being a settlement deed. At the time of registration, on closer scrutiny, it was found that the executant was a Company, who settled the properties on the children of the M.D. The Sub Registrar treated the transaction to be a gift and directed payment of deficient registration fees and stamp duty. The presenter expressed his helplessness for want of sufficient funds and undertook to pay the deficient amounts as determined by the District Registrar. The Sub-Registrar hence impounded the documents and sent it to the District Registrar (General) for determination of stamp duty. One of the orders passed, as evidenced at Ext.P3 in W.P.(C) No.16061 of 2017 is referred to.

3. The District Registrar found that the executant was a Company and hence there can be no settlement effected as defined in Section 2(q) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (for brevity 'the Stamp Act'). Article 51(1) of the Stamp Act was found to be not applicable, since the settlement is not in favour of father, mother, husband, wife, son, daughter, brother or sister of a person. The execution was not by a person as understood in the said Article. It was found that the deed is one of gift and stamp duty is leviable under Article 31(ii) of the Stamp Act. The stamp duty leviable was determined under Article 31(ii) of the Stamp Act. When the person who produced the document, the petitioner was asked to remit the balance stamp duty and registration fees, he expressed his helplessness, for reason of his inability to generate sufficient funds. Appeals to the Land Revenue Commissioner failed, one of which is seen at Ext.P4. The petitioner was served with demand notices for the amounts due, as per Exhibit P-5, produced in all the writ petitions.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that produced for registration under Section 33 of the Stamp Act. Section 33 of the Stamp Act is applicable only when an instrument not duly stamped; is produced in evidence or any person in charge of a public office comes across such instrument, in the performance of any such functions. It is argued that, at the time of determination of registration fees, the instrument should have been refused; as is provided under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Registration Rules. Section 51 of the Registration Act provides for Register-Books to be kept in the several offices, which includes Book 2 “Record of reasons for refusals to register”. Section 71 of the Registration Act also mandates the reasons for refusal to register to be recorded in such Book.

5. The learned Counsel relies on the judgment of a Single Judge of this Court in Assanaru Khan v. Sub Registrar [2017 (3) KLT 68]. It is the specific contention of the learned Counsel that on such refusal being effected; if the petitioner does not take any further steps, the consequence would be that the conveyance would not be acted upon, whether it be a settlement or a gift. The petitioner is unable to pay the stamp duty and hence the petitioner does not desire to proceed with the conveyance of the property. Let there be an order, directing the Sub Regist