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

2024 Supreme(Ker) 322

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Viju Abraham, J.
Rajesh Kumar K. T. – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By Its Secretary To Registration Department And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) NO. 9649 OF 2023
Decided On : 20-03-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Liji.J.Vadakedom, Tom E. Jacob, Rexy Elizabeth Thomas, Athul V. Vadakkedom
For the Respondent: Deepa Narayanan, Sr.GP

IMPORTANT POINT
A rectification deed correcting a mistake in property description should be treated as a rectification deed, not a fresh sale deed, and should be subject to the applicable fee for registration of a rectification deed.

Headnote:

Rectification Deed - Property Dispute - Registration Act, Section 78

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner seeks to rectify a mistake in a partition deed regarding the description of properties. The District Registrar treated the rectification deed as a fresh sale deed and ordered a high stamp duty.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the rectification deed did not create, transfer, limit, extend, extinguish, or record any right, and therefore should be treated as a rectification deed, not a fresh sale deed.

Issues: The main issue was whether the rectification deed should be treated as a fresh sale deed or a rectification deed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous judgments to establish that a rectification deed correcting a mistake in property description should be treated as a rectification deed, not a fresh sale deed, and should be subject to the applicable fee for registration of a rectification deed.

Final Decision: The court set aside the order and directed the respondent to register the rectification deed by levying a fee applicable to the registration of a rectification deed.

JUDGMENT :

The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P3 order and seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent to register the rectification deed similar to Ext.P2 draft rectification deed by levying stamp duty of only Rs. 500/-.

2. Petitioner contends that the petitioner's father, late Mr.Thankappan and his sister, Thankamma had executed Ext.P1 Partition Deed No. 917/2007 of the SRO, Chirakkadavu dated 26.02.2007. In Ext.P1 Partition Deed, properties are divided into two schedules-'A' and 'B'. 'A' scheduled property is divided as A1, A2 and A3 which were allotted to the father of the petitioner-Thankappan. 'B' scheduled property was allotted to Thankamma sister of the petitioner's father. The details are as follows;

    (i) A1 Schedule -8.18 Ares and 33.10 Ares (total extent 41.18 Ares) in Re. Sy. Nos. 83/14 and 83/9 respectively in Bl. No. 16 (1 Acre 2 Cents out of a total property having an extent of 2 Acres 44 Cents in old survey No. 1052/1, 1052/2, 1052/3, 1052/4 and 1052/7)

(ii) A2 Schedule -7.60 Ares in old survey No.965, Re. Sy. No. 84/18, Bl. No. 16.

(iii) A3 Schedule -20 Ares in old survey No. 1034/1, Re. survey No. 27/3, Bl. No. 16

(iv) B Schedule -58.92 Ares in resurvey No. 83/14. (1 Acre 42 Cents out of a total property having an extent of 2 Acres 44 Cents in old survey No. 1052/1, 1052/2, 1052/3, 1052/4 and 1052/7) Later, the petitioner realized that there was a mistake with regard to the description of the above mentioned properties in A1 Schedule and Schedule B of Ext.P1 Partition Deed. Though the total extent of the properties mentioned in A1 and B schedules were correctly shown, a mistake has crept in whereby the resurvey number of the above-mentioned property got interchanged. By the time the mistake was noted, the father of the petitioner died. In such circumstance, Ext.P2 correction deed was executed by the petitioner, and his brother's wife in the capacity of the power of attorney holder of the petitioner's brother-Harish Kumar K. T., and his father's sister Thankamma. The corrections to be made to Ext. P1 Partition Deed is as stated below:

(a) As per 'A1' Schedule in Ext.P1 Partition Deed, the property of 33.10 Ares and 8.18 Ares (total extent 41.28 Ares) is comprised in Re. Sy No. 83/9 and 83/14 respectively in Block No. 16 of Chirakkadavu Village. The same is corrected as 41.28 Ares in Resurvey No. 83/14.

(b) As per 'B' Schedule in Ext.P1 Partition Deed, the total extent of 58.92 Ares which is shown as comprised in Re. Sy. No. 83/14 was split up as 33.10 Ares in Resurvey No.83/9 and 25.82 Ares in Resurvey No.83/14.

(c) The total extent as per old survey and the resurvey remained the same in both the deeds.

In the above circumstance Ext.P2 correction deed was presented to the District Registrar (General), Kottayam for the determination of stamp duty, so as to subsequently register the correction deed. However, the District Registrar (General) vide order dated 07.04.2022 treated the aforesaid correction deed to be a fresh sale deed and ordered the petitioner as per Ext.P3, to pay a stamp value of Rs.4,32,848/-for the registration of Ext.P2 correction deed. It is pertinent to notice that Ext.P2 correction deed did not create, transfer, limit, extend, extinguish or record any right of the parties to the correction deed with respect to the properties mentioned in A1 schedule and B schedule respectively. Ext.P2 correction deed was only intended to rectify the errors that crept in with respect to the resurvey numbers of A1 schedule and B schedule in Ext.P1 Partition Deed. The petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in Baburaj P. K. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others reported in 2019 (2) KHC 628, wherein the Court has held that the Registration Act provides a Table of fees under S.78 of the Act. Table 1(s) under S.78 refers a deed which can be treated as rectification deed and it states that the maximum fee leviable on such a deed at Rs.500/-and that rectification deed does not create, transfer, limit, ex

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 Back to top