The central legal point established in the judgment is that the refusal to release a document based on a Certificate of Recovery must comply with the statutory provisions of Section 33-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

1. The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, seeking a direction to the respondents to release the Deed of Dissolution of Partnership dated 17.10.2001, pending registration with the 3rd respondent.

2. I have heard Mr. M. Vallinayagam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Alagudevan, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents.

3. A Deed of Dissolution of Partnership, executed by the petitioner and one Mr. S. Murugaiah on 17.10.2001 was presented for registration before the third respondent. The stamp duty paid on the Deed was Rs.100/-. The document indicated the value of the property divided under the Deed, as Rs.4,02,500/-. Since the stamp duty paid was not in tune with the value of the property reflected in the Deed itself, the document was kept pending as pending document No.71 of 2001.

4. Subsequently, the Sub Registrar sent a notice to the parties to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs.32,996/- and deficit registration fee of Rs.2,660/-. But the District Registrar issued a notice dated 8.6.2004 under Section 33-A of the Indian Stamp Act, calling upon the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.2,03,552/-and deficit registration fee of Rs.19,575/-. The notice was followed by a Certificate of Recovery on 31.1.2005. The respondents claim to have served the said Certificate on the petitioner on 24.2.2005.

5. However, the petitioner sent two amounts, one for Rs.19,575/-under a cheque dated 26.6.2011 and another for Rs.16,081/-under a cheque dated 21.3.2011. These amounts were sent in accordance with the demand earlier made by the Sub Registrar, before the District Registrar initiated proceedings under Section 33-A. Therefore, the Sub Registrar refused to take these two payments and release the document, forcing the petitioner to come up with the above writ petition.

6. The respondents have filed a counter contending inter alia that after the Sub Registrar erroneously raised a demand for deficit stamp duty of Rs.32,996/- and deficit registration fee of Rs.2,660/-, the District Registrar initiated action under Section 33-A and issued a show cause notice dated 8.6.2004. It was followed by a Certificate of Recovery dated 31.1.2005. The same is final under Section 33-A(2), subject to an appeal under sub-section (3). Therefore, the respondents claim that the document cannot be released.

7. Under Article 46-B (i) of Schedule I to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, stamp duty is payable on the market value of the immovable property, if a Deed of Dissolution of partnership involves partition of immovable properties among the partners who are not family members. This provision is actually much worse than Article 45 (b), which makes the stamp duty payable on a Deed of Partition itself only on the value of the separated share and not on the value of the whole property. I do not know in what manner, the division of properties between the partners of a partnership firm is worse than the partition of properties between persons who are not family members. Any way I am not concerned with the validity of Article 46-B(i).

8. According to the respondents, the Sub Registrar demanded stamp duty and registration fee on the value of the property indicated in the document. But the respondents claim to have issued a Certificate of Recovery under Section 33-A of the Stamp Act, 1899 and on that basis, the respondents refuse to release the document.

9. But unfortunately, the stand taken by the respondents do not appear to be legally well founded. Under Section 33-A(1), the District Registrar is empowered to issue a Certificate for the recovery of any deficit stamp duty, as an arrear of land revenue, if it is found after the registration of any document that proper stamp duty had not been paid or that the stamp duty paid is insufficient. But the power to issue a Certificate of Recovery is circumscribed by two provisos. Under the first proviso to Section 33-A (1), no Certificate of Recovery can be issued unless "due inq