Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 4385
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. JYOTHIMANI
P. Uthamaraj
Versus
The District Registrar Chennai South & Others
WRIT PETITION NO.17776 OF 2009
Decided on: 24-10-2009
For the Petitioner:S. Packiaraj, Advocate.
For the Respondents: T. Seenivasan, Addl.Gvot.Pleader.
Ratios:
a. When the result of rectification of an instrument increases the extent of the property or superstructure by which the value of the property would be increased from the previous instrument, Sec.47B can be applied and the difference in stamp duty can be recovered by making calculation as per Schedule I.
b. In cases where by rectification, there is no alteration in the basic nature of the document, especially in the extent and valuation of the property or where the rectification is only in respect of technical aspect such as typographical error or where the rectification is in respect of extent of property while the actual measurement remains unchanged, Schedule I or section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act cannot be applied.
Headnote:(A)Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) -Sec.47A, 47B-Stamps-Valuation-Under valuation-Rectification deed-Registration-Petitioner got registered a rectification deed, inter-changing the length and breadth of the property as stated in the original deed without any change in the extent or nature of the property-Respondent determined the value of the property on the date of rectification afresh and demanded difference of amount-Petitioner challenged the communication-Held, valuation can be determined under Sec.47A only in case of conveyance, exchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement and not when there is only a technical alteration in the document already registered-Writ petition allowed and the registering authority was directed to register the document without insisting for the payment of additional amount.
(B)Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) -Sec.47A, 47B-Stamps-Valuation-Under valuation-Rectification deed-Registration-Revaluation-When the result of rectification of an instrument increases the extent of the property or superstructure by which the value of the property would be increased from the previous instrument, Sec.47B can be applied and the difference in stamp duty can be recovered by making calculation as per Schedule I.-In cases where by rectification, there is no alteration in the basic nature of the document, especially in the extent and valuation of the property or where the rectification is only in respect of technical aspect such as typographical error or where the rectification is in respect of extent of property while the actual measurement remains unchanged, Schedule I or section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act cannot be applied. A reading of section 47-B, it is clear that chargeability under Schedule I would be applicable only in cases where in the rectification deeds by making change in description of property from the previous instrument, the valuation is sought to be altered. It may arise in cases where by rectification the extent of the property is sought to be increased or altered by which the value of the property or superstructure may get increased. In those cases, certainly by applying section 47-B of the Act, the difference in stamp duty can be recovered by making calculation as per Schedule I. In cases where by rectification, there is no alteration in the basic nature of the document, especially in the extent and valuation of the property or where the rectification is only in respect of technical aspect such as typographical error or where the rectification is in respect of extent of property while the actual measurement remains unchanged, there is no question of application of Schedule I or application of section 47-A of the Act. Para 11
If by way of rectification deed, the extent is going to be increased, certainly for the difference in extent, the registering authority is entitled to charge the stamp duty under Schedule I. But, it is not open to the registering authority to reopen the original sale that took place in the year 2003 for the purpose of fresh assessment of value as on the date of rectification of typographical error and by imposing stamp duty on the rectification deed and to seek to recover the difference of stamp duty from the petitioner. Para 15
The writ petition is filed challenging the order of the District Registrar, Chennai, the first respondent herein, dated 23. 2007, by which the first respondent confirmed the communication of the second respondent dated 11. 2005, in which the second respondent informed the petitioner that the rectification deed presented for registration suffers stamp duty as per section 47-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and consequently directed payment of stamp duty to the extent of Rs.1,71,270/-.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased the property, viz., the land situate at Nandambakkam village, Tambaram taluk bearing plot No.141 comprised in survey No.163 under the Tamil Nadu Defence Services Co-operative House Construction Society Limited Scheme along with residential house thereon bearing House No.141 (New No.5), Defence Officers Colony, Chennai-32 from his vendor Brigadier N.R.R.Sharma under a registered sale deed executed on 5. 2003. In the said document, the boundaries are given as follows: on the north by site plot No.150, on the east by site plot No.142, on the south by 30 feet Cross Road and on the west by site plot No.140. Regarding measurement it is stated as follows: measuring east to west on the northern and southern side 100 feet and north to south on the eastern and western side 63 feet and containing by admeasuring 6300 sq.ft and building thereon (with all the fixtures fittings and electrical connections and other amenities appurtenant thereon)".
3. The vendor of the petitioner viz., N.R.R.Sharma in his turn purchased the said property from the Tamil Nadu Area Defence Services Co-operative House Construction Society Limited registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 under a registered sale deed executed by the Secretary on 110. 1970 and registered as document No.1271/1970 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Alandur. It is stated that in the said sale deed of the year 1970 executed in favour of the vendor of the petitioner also the measurement was stated as follows: measuring east to west on the northern and southern sides 100 feet and north to south on the eastern and western sides 63 feet. After it was realised that the measurement should be east to west 63 feet and north to south 100 feet which was wrongly given in the original document dated 110. 1970, the vendor of the petitioner obtained a deed of rectification from the Tamil Nadu Area Defence Services Co-operative House Construction Society Limited represented by its Secretary under a rectification deed dated 1. 2005 registered as document No.19 of 2005 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Alandur by which the above said rectification was made only regarding measurement stating east to west 63 feet and north to south 100 feet, instead of the wrong measurement given in the original sale deed viz., east to west 100 feet and north to south 63 feet.
4. After obtaining the said rectification deed from the Tamil Nadu Area Defence Services Co-operative House Construction Society Limited, the vendor of the petitioner N.R.R.Sharma executed a rectification deed in favour of the petitioner on the same day, viz., on 1. 2005, rectifying the sale deed obtained by the petitioner on 5. 2003, in respect of the above change in the measurement stating east to west on the northern and southern sides 63 feet and north to south on the eastern and western sides 100 feet and containing by admeasuring 6300 sq.ft. instead of east to west on the northern and southern sides 100 feet and north to south on the eastern and western sides 63 feet and containing by admeasuring 6300 sq.ft.. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that as far as the extent of the property is concerned, there is no change viz., it remains as 6300 sq.ft. and the measurement on the east to west and north to south was inter-changed by mistake and that mistake was sought to be rectified.
5. It was when the said document was presented, the second respondent, as stated above
