Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.
Hiranandani Township Private Limited - Appellants
Vs.
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration and Ors. - Respondent
W.P. Nos. 17490 to 17497 of 2012
Decided On : 02-12-2021
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Schedule 1A, 33A(1), 47A - Article 5(j) - Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of undervaluation of instruments) Rules, 1968 - Rule 7 - Sale deed - Agreement for Sale - Petitioner company had entered into an agreement for sale with its vendor and presented for registration before the third respondent and all the agreement for sale were registered in the following manner for the purchase of certain agricultural lands - Whether the proceedings initiated under Section 33A(1) of the Act is barred by limitation or not - Provision in a statute which is procedural in nature although employs the word "shall" may not be held to be mandatory if thereby no prejudice is caused. (Para 49).
Finding of the Court: Period of three months as contemplated under Rule 7 of Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of undervaluation of instruments) Rules, 1968, is directory in nature. Further, held that a period of three months to general object of the provisions are considered, fixation of period has to be taken to be directory - Otherwise, very object of sub-serving public interest and securing public revenue would get defeated - However, the above judgment has dealt with the provisions under Section 47A of Act and Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of undervaluation of instruments) Rules, 1968.
Result: Petitions allowed.
ORDER :
G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.
1. All the writ petitions have been filed to call for the records pertaining to the order of the first respondent in proceedings, bearing No. 53024/P1/2011, dated 10.04.2012 and the Certificate bearing No. 8039/B2/2008, dated 04.10.2011 issued by the second respondent and quash the same and forbear the respondents from initiating any further action basis the Agreement for sale in respect of the subject property.
2. The petitioner is one and the same in all the writ petitions. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner company had entered into an agreement for sale with its vendor and presented for registration before the third respondent and all the agreement for sale were registered in the following manner for the purchase of certain agricultural lands,
| S. No | Doct. No | Date of execution | Vendor | Purchaser | Confirming Party | Consideration amount in crores |
| 1. | 10325/2007 | 17.10.2007 | 1. D.Suresh Reddy 2. M.R.K.S. Varma | Hiranandani Township Private Ltd., | M/s.Sai Surya Realtors and Developers | 3,50,59,999 |
| 2. | 10326/2007 | 17.10.2007 | 1. D. Peter Francis 2. P.Solomon Francis 3. S.Fathima Jeyamary 4.P. Antony Josephine | Hiranandani Township Private Ltd., | M/s.Sai Surya Realtors and Developers | 14,50,00,000 |
| 3. | 10327/2007 | 17.10.2007 | T.L. Sridharan | Hiranandani Township Private Ltd., | M/s.Sai Surya Realtors and Developers | 3,16,25,000 |
| 4. | 10328/2007 | 17.10.2007 | M. Kausalya | Hiranandani Township Private Ltd. | M/s.Sai Surya Realtors and Developers | 4,73,80,000 |
| 5. | 10329/2007 | 17.10.2007 | E. Rajendran | Hiranandani Township Private Ltd. | M/s.Sai Surya Realtors and Developers | 14,53,60,000 |
| 6. | 9752/2007 | 15.10.2007 | I. Narasimha Reddy | Hiranandani Township Private Ltd., | M/s.Sai Surya Realtors | 1,90,00,000 |
| 7. | 9753/2007 | 15.10.2007 | T.Chandra sekar | Hiranandani Township Private Ltd., | M/s.Sai Surya Realtors | 3,00,00,000 |
| 8. | 4387/2008 | 23.4.2008 | 1.R.Mayilv aganan 2.A.R. Rosekumar | Hiranandani Township Private Ltd., | M/s.Sai Surya Realtors and Developers | 4,02,50,000 |
3. The lands comprised in various survey numbers situated at Thaiyur Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District (herein after called as "subject property"). The vendor had agreed to sell the subject property to the petitioner company and agreed to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner company, subject to satisfaction of clear and marketable title. Under the agreement of sale, the full sale consideration was paid by the petitioner company to the vendor and the vacant possession was also handed over to the petitioner company by its vendors. All the agreement for sale were presented for registration and the petitioner had paid Rs. 100/- towards stamp duty, as per the Article 5(j) of the Schedule 1A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as applicable in the State of Tamil Nadu (herein after called as "the Act") and also paid 1% on the sale consideration as registration fees. Accordingly, the above said manner of the agreement for sale were registered by the third respondent.
4. In pursuant to the said agreement for sale, the vendors executed the sale deeds in favour of the petitioner in the following manner,
| S. No | Writ Petition No. | Agreement For Sale | Period of Limitation Expired on | Sale Deed | ||
| Doc.No | Presented for Registration on | Doc. No | Presented for Registration on | |||
| 1. | 17490 of 2012 | 9752/2007 | 15.10.2007 | 14.10.2010 | 1104/2011 | 31.05.2010 |
| 2. | 17491 of 2012 | 10327/2007 | 17.10.2007 | 16.10.2010 | 1103/2011 | 31.05.2010 |
| 3. | 17492 of 2012 | 10329/2007 | 17.10.2007 | 16.10.2010 | 1106/2011 | 31.05.2010 |
| 4. | 17493 of 2012 | 4387/2008 | 23.04.2008 | 22.04.2011 | 1105/2011 | 31.05.2010 |
| 5. | 17494 of 2012 | 10325/2007 | 17.10.2007 | 16.10.2010 | 3804/2010 | 31.05.2010 |
| 6. | 17495 of 2012 | |||||
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
