DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

Introduction:

1. Individual property brought into a company, the company wants to settle the property on the Managing Director’s children. When the MD presented the settlement deeds presented for registration, the Sub Registrar impounded them, taking a stand that the instruments have been insufficiently stamped. Even the MD’s request to take the deeds back was not entertained.

2. Can the Sub Registrar impound the deeds of conveyance when they have not been pressed into service as completed documents, but presented only for registration?

Case in Brief:

3. Dr. Abdul Rasheed, also known as Dr. A.R. Babu, is the Managing Director of a company-M/s. Heera Summer Holiday Homes Private Ltd. His wife is the director. And the Company has no other stakeholder. Both brought into the Company their properties at Poovar Village, Thiruvananthapuram District.

4. Dr. Rasheed wanted to settle those properties on his three children. But he could not do it on his own; the company could. So the company, represented by its Managing Director, executed settlement deeds, dated 13.06.2016.

5. When those deeds of settlement were presented for registration, the Sub Registrar, the 4th respondent, initially treated them as such and levied the stamp duty. But at the time of registration, on closer scrutiny, the Sub Registrar found the documents other than settlement deeds; they were treated as gift deeds. The executant is a Company, and the consideration is love and affection-incompatible.

6. With the turn of events, for want of funds, Dr. Rasheed expressed his helplessness to comply with the demand. The Sub-Registrar, then, impounded the documents and sent them to the District Registrar (General), the second respondent, for determining the stamp duty. He did pass orders, confirming the Sub Registrar’s findings. Ext.P3 is one such order. Challenging Ext.P3, Dr. Rasheed filed a revision before the Land Revenue Commissioner, who treated it as an appeal. On 2nd March 2017, the Land Revenue Commissioner passed Ext.P4 order, dismissing Dr. Rasheed’s plea. The documents impounded, the authorities refused even to return the documents when Dr. Rasheed did not want to go ahead with the registration.

7. Ext.P3 order passed by the Sub Registrar treats the deed as gift and levies stamp duty @ 6% under Art. 31 (ii). The stamp duty on all the seven deeds comes to Rs. 9,31,25,520/-.

8. Dr. Rasheed filed seven writ petitions - WP (C) Nos. 16061, 16062, 16063, 16091, 16093, 16098, 16109 of 2017—assailing seven orders similar to Exts.P3 and P4.

9. In the writ petitions, Dr. Rasheed sought these reliefs: (i) to quash Exts.P3 and P4 orders; (ii) to command the Sub Registrar to register the documents, treating them as deeds of settlement; (iii) to direct the CLR, Dr. and Sub Registrar to consider the settlement deeds, in the light of section 71 of the Registration Act, and to further direct the Sub Registrar to pass orders under section 71 of the Registration Act, so Dr. Rasheed could challenge them in appropriate proceedings; (iv) in the alternative, to direct these officials to return deeds to Dr. Rasheed.

10. A learned Single Judge dismissed all the writ petitions through a common judgment, dated 06.12.2017, 2018 (1) KLT 334, aggrieved, Dr. Rasheed filed these intra-court appeals.

Submissions:

Appellants:

11. Sri K.V. Sadananda Prabhu, the learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the facts are not in dispute, and only a question of law has to be decided: whether the Sub Registrar has the power to impound a document presented for registration. He contends that impounding could be possible only if the document is presented in evidence.

12. The learned Single Judge, according to Sri Prabhu, has relied on decisions which have no bearing on the issue on hand. He has submitted that Assanaru Khan vs. Sub Registrar, 2017 (3) KLT 68, relied on by the appellant, squarely answers the issue. He has also contended that a coequal Bench ought not to have taken