The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 5 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 in the context of instruments relating to several distinct matters.

1. The writ petition in WP.No.4459/2012 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the notice in Proc. No. Nil on the file of the respondent herein, viz., the Sub Registrar, Ambattur, served upon the petitioner on -02-2012 and to direct the respondent to register and return the document presented before for registration on 14.11.2011.

2. The writ petition in WP.No.13979/2012 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Circular No.30196/P1/2011-1 dated 13.09.2011 and the notice in Proc. No. NIL on the file of the 1st respondent served upon the petitioner on 28.03.2012 and to further direct the respondent to register and return the document presented before for registration on 14.11.2011.

3. Since the matter involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, and the parties are also identical, a common order is being passed to dispose of these two writ petitions.

4. The case of the petitioner in common in both the writ petitions is as follows:-

[a] The property in S.No.96/I.D.1 comprised in Pattta No.177, Ambattur belonged to one C.U. Mansoor Ali, who had purchased the same under a Sale Deed dated 22.09.2010, from D. Marimuthu, son of Late Deenadayalan. The vendor had parted with his possession through a power agent on the same day. From the date of purchase, he has been in effective possession and occupation of the said property. Patta and the other revenue records have been mutated in his name. Subsequently, the petitioner herein has purchased the same from him for a valuable consideration and a Sale Deed has been executed in the name of the petitioner's wife and the petitioner. At that time, brothers of the said Deenadayalan were also called upon to join as confirming parties along with the said Mansoor Ali, which is nothing but a sort of attestation to confirm the sale executed in favour of the petitioner. In reality, they have no right, title or interest in the property which the petitioner has purchased along with his wife. Only for mere confirmation of the sale made in favour of the petitioner and his wife, those persons were referred to and shown as confirming parties. Immediately, on its execution, the document was presented before the 1st respondent for registration. But, the said document was kept pending by the first respondent without registration. When the petitioner approached the 1st respondent to know the reason for not registering the document, he had advised the petitioner to remove the names of the confirming parties in order to register the said documents.

[b] Hence, a writ petition in WP.No.27948/2011 was filed before this Court, which was disposed of on 01.02.2012, to return the document which was presented before it. Immediately after the issuance of Court's directions, a notice was issued on -02-2012 by speed post, wherein the petitioner was called upon to pay an additional stamp duty of Rs.1,01,472/-. Challenging the above said notice, the petitioner filed WP.No.4459/2012 and this Court ordered notice of motion and thereafter, called upon the respondent to file counter. Consequently, a counter affidavit has been filed in that writ petition only. IN the meantime, the 1st respondent in WP.No.13979/2012 issued notice dated 28.03.2012 threatening to return the document without registration. Hence, challenging the notice dated 28.03.2012, the above WP.No.13979/2012 has been filed.

[c] After filing of the above writ petition, MP.No.2/2013 was filed by the petitioner in WP.No.13979/2012 seeking for amendment of the prayer portion in the writ petition on the ground that the 1st respondent was not able to register the document only on the basis of the circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration, viz., the Circular No.30196/P1/2011-1 dated 13.09.2011. The Inspector General of Registration was also sought to be impleaded in WP.No.13979/2012 as 2nd respondent in MP.No.1/2013. The 2nd respondent was impleaded on 26.07.2013 and MP.No.2/2013 for amendm