IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
Muraleedharan S/o Karunakaran – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 24934 of 2023
Decided On : 19-03-2024
Stamp Papers - Refund - Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, Section 48
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a refund for stamp papers purchased for a court auction. The court allowed the refund, but the authorities declined, citing delay in application beyond the period prescribed under Section 48 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's application for refund was filed within the time prescribed by Section 48(2) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, and set aside the authorities' decision, directing them to receive back the stamp papers and refund the value within two months.
Issues: The main issue was the timeliness of the petitioner's application for refund under Section 48 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's application for refund was filed within the prescribed time as per Section 48(2) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, and therefore, the authorities' decision to decline the refund was unsustainable.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the authorities were directed to receive back the stamp papers and refund the value within two months.
JUDGMENT :
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
1. The petitioner has approached this court challenging Exts.P7 and P8 whereby the request of the petitioner to receive back the stamp papers and to refund the value of the same was declined stating that the application has been made beyond the period prescribed under Section 48 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959.
2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 597 of 2011 before the Additional Sub Court, North Paravur which was instituted for the realization of an amount of Rs. 16,85,500/-. The suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner as per Ext.P1 decree dated 01.06.2013. In execution of the decree, the property attached was put to sale and the petitioner participated in the auction and the same was fixed in his favour. Petitioner has also remitted the value for the stamp paper required for the issuance of the sale certificate as evident from Ext.P3 receipt dated 21.10.2016. After the said remittance, the Principle Sub Judge purchased the requisite stamp papers for a value of Rs. 2,80,000/- on 22.12.2016. An appeal was preferred by the defendant in the suit before this Court as F.A.O. No. 142 of 2018 and in the said appellate proceedings, the dispute was settled through mediation and the settlement was recorded and Ext.P5 judgment was passed on 22.03.2019. As per the terms of the settlement, the petitioner herein is entitled to receive back Rs. 2,80,000/- towards the value of stamp paper remitted by him. Towards the refund of the unused stamp papers, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 application, E.A. No. 474 of 2019 in E.P. No. 195 of 2013 in O.S. No. 597 of 2011 on 07.11.2019 and the same was forwarded to the Collector on 10.12.2019 directly through the court staff. By Ext.P6 communication, the 3rd respondent addressed the 2nd respondent intimating the inability to consider the application for refund since an application in this regard was not filed within six months as mandated in Sections 47 and 48 of the Kerala Stamp Act. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent returned the unused stamp papers with Ext.P7 covering letter stating the very same reasons in Ext.P6. It is aggrieved by the same that the petitioner has approached this Court.
3. Petitioner contends that the matter has been settled outside the court as provided in Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the settlement arrived at is a judicial settlement and Ext.P5 is invariably a decree. Exts.P6 and P7 were issued without any application of mind and without taking into consideration the fact that the stamp paper in question was purchased by the court and was in possession of the court. Ext.P8 application was submitted by the petitioner in this regard and the court has passed Ext.P9 order wherein it was ordered to issue refund order.
4. Learned Government pleader would submit relying on Sections 47 and 48 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 that since the application was filed beyond the time prescribed in the Act, the value of stamp papers cannot be refunded. In Ext.P7 it is stated that the case was compounded on 15.03.2019 and the application for refund was filed only on 09.12.2019, which is filed beyond the period of six months as stipulated in Section 48(2) of the Kerala Stamp Act.
5. Section 47 deals with allowance for spoiled stamps and Section 48 provides for when to make an application for relief under Section 47. Section 48 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 reads as follows:
(1) in the cases mentioned in Clause (c) (5), within two months of the date of the instrument.
(2) in the case of stamped paper on which no instrument has been executed by any of the parties thereto, within six months after the stamp has been spoiled.
(3) in the case of a stamped paper in which an instrument has been executed by any of the parties thereto, within six months after the date of the instrument or, if it is not
The main legal point established is that the timeliness of an application for refund under Section 48 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 is determined based on the specific provisions of the Act, and the ....
when a stamp paper gets spoiled on account of “refusal of any person to act under the same, or if the purpose behind it totally fails of the intended one, then the period of limitation to seek refund....
Refund applications under Section 52 of the Kerala Stamp Act must satisfy conditions but are not strictly bound by a six-month limitation if bona fides are proven.
It is well settled that courts will not add words to a statute or read into the statute words not in it. Even if the courts come to the conclusion that there is any omission in the words used, it can....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, should be interpreted in a manner that upholds equity and fairness, and that the application of ....
The court established the principle that compelling compliance with impossible conditions, and prejudicing a party due to judicial delay, would be unjust and unconscionable.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.