The main legal principle established is that rectification deeds that do not alter property valuation or constitute a fresh transfer of property do not warrant a fresh assessment of property value or the imposition of stamp duty.

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 Cooperative 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 abov