T. T. Gnanamurugan vs Inspector General of Registration and District Registrar

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2009 Supreme(Mad) 1456

AIR 2009 Mad 202
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
K.N. Basha, J.
T.T. Gnanamurugan (deceased) and G. Aye Muthu
Vs.
The Inspector General of Registration and District Registrar
W.P. No. 6015 of 2000
Decided On: 28.04.2009

Important Points

The central legal point established in the judgment is the correct interpretation of the disputed document under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and the classification as a 'deed of settlement' or a 'deed of confirmation'.

Subject

Interpretation of Law - Stamp Duty and Document Interpretation

Act Referred

STAMP ACT : Art.58(a), S.57, Art.4, S.56(1), S.2(24)

Headnote

Interpretation - Stamp Duty - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Section 2(24) - Article 4 - Article 58(A)(ii) - Chief Controlling Revenue Authority v. M.S. Dhanakodi - Dulip Singh v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration - V.S.Somasundaram v. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority - Chief Controlling Revenue Authority v. The Maharashtra Sugar Mills Limited - The disputed document was interpreted as a 'deed of confirmation' and not a 'deed of settlement' as held by the respondents. The court held that the impugned orders passed by the respondents were unsustainable in law and quashed the same.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought relief to quash the proceedings of the Inspector General of Registration and the District Registrar, alleging that the authorities wrongly interpreted a document as a settlement deed instead of a deed of confirmation.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the disputed document was a deed of confirmation and not a deed of settlement as held by the respondents. The impugned orders passed by the respondents were unsustainable in law and were quashed.

Issues: Interpretation of the disputed document, classification as a 'deed of settlement' or a 'deed of confirmation', and the applicability of stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disputed document did not meet the criteria for a 'deed of settlement' as per the definition under Section 2(24) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The court also emphasized that the impugned orders were unsustainable in law due to the incorrect interpretation of the document.

Final Decision: The impugned orders passed by the respondents were quashed, and it was held that the disputed document would attract stamp duty under Article 4 to the Schedule I of the Act.

Advocates:
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: N. Damodaran, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: Lita Srinivasan, Government Adv.

ORDER

K.N. Basha, J.

1. This petition was heard on 08.04.2009 and again posted on 24.04.2009 for certain clarifications and after hearing both sides this order is passed today, i.e., on 28.04.2009.

2. The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition seeking for the relief of calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai-600 028 made in Pa.Mu. No. 17473/E3/95 dated 14.10.1999 received on 8.2.2000, the 1st respondent herein and the proceedings of the District Registrar, Tirupur made in No. 3271/83/94 dated 20.1.1995, the second respondent herein and quash the same.

3.The case of the petitioner is that as per the compromise decree passed on 25.4.1970 in O.S. No. 272/1990 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore for partition and separate possession of the property comprised in Survey No. 376, Ravanapuram Village, the petitioner and all other respective parties were in possession and absolute enjoyment of their shares. That being the position, the petitioner applied to the Tahsildar, Udumalpet to effect sub-division of the property to their respective possession on 12.1.1992 and necessary fees also paid. The Tahsildar, Udumalpet while effecting the sub-division committed mistakes and omissions in respect of the properties. It is further stated that the wrong inclusion of the survey numbers by the Revenue authorities will not confer any title upon other sharers, namely, the brother of the petitioner in respect to the said extent of lands and as such, the petitioner and his brother and his brother's son entered into a deed of confirmation dated 30.5.1994, wherein it was made clear that the other sharers namely, the brother of the petitioner and his brother's son have no objection for the petitioner to get a separate patta in respect of the portion under his possession and enjoyment. The petitioner further states that by such confirmation, the petitioner's brother and his brother's son only confirmed the title interest and possession of the petitioner herein in an extent of 89 cents in Survey No. 376/2 of Ravanapuram Village and by the said document they have also conveyed their no objection for transferring the patta wrongly given in their names.

4.The further version of the petitioner is that when the above said document was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Komangalam on 30.5.1994, the said authority impounded the said document by treating it as a Settlement Deed and valued the property at Rs. 3,25,954/- and directed the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 39,120/-. The 2nd respondent accepted the said view of the Sub-Registrar, Koramangalam by interpreting the said document as Settlement Deed, issued a show-cause notice dated 18.11.1994 calling upon the petitioner to give his explanation why he should not pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 39,110/- and Rs. 90/- towards penalty within one month from the date of the said show cause notice. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation dated 12.1.1995 to the said show cause notice.

5.It is further stated by the petitioner that the second respondent without properly considering the facts of the case and without properly adverting to the recitals of the documents confirmed the earlier order in his proceedings No. 3271/B1/94 dated 20.1.1995 and directed the petitioner to pay the amount within one month from the date of receipt of such proceedings. Being aggrieved against such order, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the first respondent herein and the first respondent after hearing the matter, passed the impugned order dated 14.10.1999 confirming the orders of the second respondent herein.

6. Mr. N. Damodaran, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that both the respondents 1 and 2 have wrongly interpreted the disputed document as settlement deed without considering the actual contents and recitals of the document. It is further conten