Back
2002 Supreme(Mad) 274
High Court of Judicature at Madras
The Honourable Mr. Justice E. Padmanabhan
B. Rajappa and another
Versus
The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) The Office of the Collectorate (V Floor), Mr.Singaravelar Maligai Rajaji Salai, Madras and others
W.P. No. 22998 of 2001 W.P. No. 8637 of 2002 W.P.M.P. No. 33826 of 2001 W.P.M.P.
No. 11764 of 2002
Decided On: 05-04-2002
Mr. G.Ethirajulu, Advocate in W.P.No. 22998 of 2001 for Petitioners. Mr. R.Murugan, Advocate in WP 8637 of 2002 for Petitioner. Mr. N.R.Chandran, Advocate General for Respondents.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the registering authority has no jurisdiction to retain registered documents, and timely release of registered documents is essential. The judgment also emphasizes the need to safeguard the state's interest in recovering deficit stamp duty.
Headnote:
Indian Stamp Act - Retention of Registered Documents - Section 47-A(1) - Summary of Acts and Sections: Indian Stamp Act, Section 47-A(1), Sections 52, 59, 60 of The Indian Registration Act - The court discussed the provisions of Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act and its interpretation in light of the judgments in M.Ponnusamy & 42 Others v. District Collector, Erode & Others and The District Collector, Erode & Others v. M. Ponnusamy. The court emphasized that the registering authority has no jurisdiction to retain the documents once they have been registered, and highlighted the provisions of Sections 52, 59, and 60 of The Indian Registration Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner entered into an agreement for the sale of premises, and after a dispute, the owner agreed to execute the sale deed. The petitioner paid the balance of the sale consideration, and the document was registered. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with a notice under Section 47-A(1) of The Indian Stamp Act, and the original sale deed was not released.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the registering authority has no jurisdiction to retain the documents once they have been registered, and directed the authority to return the original sale deed to the petitioner. The court also issued directions to safeguard the state's interest in recovering deficit stamp duty.
Issues: The issues revolved around the jurisdiction of the registering authority to retain registered documents and the state's interest in recovering deficit stamp duty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the registering authority has no jurisdiction to retain the documents once they have been registered, and emphasized the need for timely release of registered documents. The court also provided directions to safeguard the state's interest in recovering deficit stamp duty.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions and directed the registering authority to return the original sale deed to the petitioner. The court also issued directions to safeguard the state's interest in recovering deficit stamp duty.
1. In W.P. No.22998 of 2001, the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings in Tha.Ka.No.97 of 2000 dated 10.4.2000 and the consequential notice made in Rc.S.R.97 of 2001-A1 dated 24.9.2001 issued by the first respondent purported to be under Section 47 A (1) of the Indian Stamp Act and quash the same and direct the respondents to release the sale deed dated 10.2.2000 registered as document No.262 of 2000 with the office of the 2nd respondent.
2. In W.P. No. 8637 of 2002, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to return the sale deed registered on 26.12.2001 as Document No. 2701 of 2001.
3. The points raised in both the writ petitions are identical. This Court ordered notice of motion in both the writ petitions on different dates and the respondents have been served. As identical writ petitions are being filed, this Court directed notice to the learned Advocate General. On notice from this Court, the learned Advocate General appeared. The learned Advocate General has also the necessary instructions in these cases as well, besides in other connected cases to appeal and make his submissions.
4. Heard Mr.G.Ethirajulu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No.22998 of 2001 and Mr.R.Murugan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No.8637 of 2002 and Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents in both the writ petitions.
5. The petitioner in W.P. No.22998 of 2001 entered into an agreement on 10.1.95 with C.T.Kumudavalli, owner of the premises bearing Door No.28, Govindu Street, T.Nagar, Chennai, for a consideration of Rs.2,30,000. The said agreement was renewed on 27.3.95. As difference arose between the petitioner and the owner of the premises, the petitioner instituted C.S. No.979 of 1995 on the original side of this Court, which has since been transferred to the City Civil Court and renumbered as O.S. No.351 of 1996. Pending the suit, the owner Kumudavalli, entered into a compromise with the petitioner and agreed to execute the sale deed in terms of the sale agreement. The petitioner paid the balance of sale consideration. The owner executed the sale deed and presented it for registration with the 2nd respondent, the Registrar on 10.2.2000. The document has been registered as Document No. 262 of 2000.
6. According to the petitioner, after registration of the document, the petitioner was served with a notice in Form No.1 by the first respondent, dated 10.4.2000 intimating that the 2nd respondent has referred the document under Section 47-A of The Indian Stamp Act for determination of the market value of the property. The petitioner was called upon to state his objections. The petitioner submitted his objections on 29.4.2000 and requested to drop the proceedings. The petitioner also furnished a copy of the decree passed by the City Civil Court in O.S. No.351 of 1996. The petitioner was once again called upon by the first respondent to appear for enquiry on 15.10.2000 and the petitioner requested the first respondent to release the original sale deed immediately. The original sale deed has not been released.
7. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction or authority to make a reference under Section 47-A(1) of The Indian Stamp Act and at any rate there is no jurisdiction or justification after completion of the registration to retain the sale deed without releasing the same. After registration, according to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to refer the matter to the first respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relied upon the judgment of this Court in support of his contention that when once the instrument has been registered, thereafter it is not open to the 2nd respondent to make a reference and retain the original instrument. In other words, when registration has been com
