Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 2325
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J.
K. Palanisamy - Petitioner
Versus
The Sub-Registrar, Komarapalayam - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 11913 of 2016 & W.M.P. No. 10289 of 2016
Decided On : 28-07-2016
Important Points
Subject
Property Law - Stamp Duty and Registration
Act Referred
STAMP ACT : S.19(b), S.19(b)(4)
Headnote
Stamp Duty - Property Registration - Indian Stamp Act 1899, Section 19B(4)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner purchased a property and subsequently mortgaged it. The respondent refused to register the mortgage deed unless the petitioner paid stamp duty for the original sale deed. The petitioner sought relief from the court based on Section 19B(4) of the Indian Stamp Act 1899.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the demand for deficit stamp duty was made after a lapse of four years, and therefore set aside the impugned cheque slip issued by the respondent. The petitioner was directed to present the document for registration, and the respondent was instructed to entertain the papers and pass appropriate orders expeditiously.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent's refusal to register the mortgage deed due to unpaid stamp duty for the original sale deed was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 19B(4) of the Indian Stamp Act 1899, which provides a limitation period of four years from the date of receipt of the copy of the instrument in the State of Tamil Nadu under the Registration Act, 1908 for demanding deficit stamp duty. The court also considered previous orders and interpretations of the Act in similar cases.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned cheque slip was set aside. The petitioner was directed to present the document for registration, and the respondent was instructed to process the registration expeditiously.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. R. Marudhachalamurthy
For the Respondent: Mr. S. Pattabiraman
By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioner would state that he purchased the property in Survey Nos.297/2, 297/3 and 297/4 admeasuring to an extent of Punja Acre 3.08 situated at Komarapalayam Agraharam Village, Trichengode Taluk, Namakkal District through a registered Sale Deed dated 29.03.1990 bearing Document No.742 of 1990 on the file of Office of the Sub Registrar, Vadakancherry, Palakkad District, Kerala State and according to the petitioner, he claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the said property and the said registration particulars have also been furnished to the respondent herein. It is however stated that the petitioner on 26.12.2006, have mortgaged the above said property with Indian Bank and the same was duly registered by way of Mortgage Deed with the very same respondent in Document No.2057 of 2014 dated 17.03.2014 and once again, the petitioner for the purpose of marriage of his daughter, has decided to mortgage his property and therefore, created a mortgage deed dated 14.03.2016 for a sum of Rs.23,00,000/- and the same was duly presented before the respondent herein for registration. But, the respondent refused to register the same stating that the petitioner has to pay stamp duty to the mortgaged document No.742/1990, which is registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Vaddakencheri at Kerala State. The petitioner in this regard had submitted a representation dated 15.03.2016 stating all those facts.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the matter in issue is squarely covered by the order dated 10.02.2016 made in W.P. Nos. 38363 and 38887 of 2015 (P. Ramiah and others vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and others). Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 19-B(4) of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 and as per the said proviso, action is to be taken within a period of four years from the date of receipt of the copy of such instrument in the State of Tamil Nadu under the Registration Act, 1908 and admittedly even as per the letter of the Sub Registrar, Vadakkencherry, Palakkad District addressed to the District Registrar, Namakkal, the fact of the said registration, was brought to the knowledge of the said District Registrar, Namakkal as early as on 06.09.2006 and further that the very same property was also subjected to earlier mortgage in document No. 2057/2014 dated 17.03.2014. He would further submit that in the light of the same, there cannot be any impediment or difficulty on the part of the respondent to register and return the document and prays for appropriate order to direct the respondent to register the mortgage deed.
4. Per contra, by way of filing counter affidavit, the respondent would state that unless and until the petitioner pays the differential stamp duty in support of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 in the office of Sub Registrar, Palakkad District, Kerala State, the document sought to be registered cannot be registered and prays for dismissal of this writ petition.
5. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it.
6. It is seen that the very same issue arose for consideration in Civil Appeal No.4968 of 2009 upto the Hon'ble Apex Court and it is relevant to extract para 9:-
“9. The Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to stamps. Stamp duty is payable on different types of instruments as prescribed by the State.
Section 19B of the Act was inserted by Tamil Nadu Act 43 of 1992. It reads as under:
"19B. Payment of duty on copies, counter parts or duplicates when that duty has not been paid on the principal or original instrument :-
(1) Where any instrument is registered in any part of India other than the State of Tamil Nadu and such instrument relates, wholly or partly to any property situate in the State of Tamil Nadu, the copy of such instrument shall, when received in the State of Tamil Nadu under the Registration Ac
