SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 85675

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PROMOTH MANGHAT – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 26457/2024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 1ST ASWINA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 26457 OF 2024 PETITIONERS:

1 PROMOTH MANGHAT, AGED 47 YEARS S/O. DAMODARAN CHAKKINGAL KUNISSERI, FLAT NO. 401, BLUE LAGOON APARTMENTS, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KADAVANTHARA DESOM, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682020

2 M/S AVITIS SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE AT BUILDING NO.XX/882, OPPOSITE JAPAMALARANI CHURCH, THRISSUR-POLLACHI MAIN ROAD, NENMARA P.O, PALAKKAD, KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PIN - 678508 BY ADVS. MARIYA RAJAN SHINU J.PILLAI S.SUJA, VINAYAK MOHANDAS NESMEL DIVAN SWETHA ELIZABETH SABOR RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR GENERAL REGISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION, EX-MAYOR R BALAKRISHNAN NAIR ROAD, NEAR DISTRICT COURT, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN -

695035

2 THE SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF SUB REGISTRAR, NENMARA, KERALA, PIN - 678508 Smt.Deepa V., GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

23.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Ext.P4 order passed by the 2nd respondent is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The 1st petitioner and his brother are the owners of 341.6 Ares of land in Nenmara Village, Palakkad District. They leased out the said property along with the building situated therein to the 2nd petitioner and entered into Ext.P2 lease agreement. The lease agreement was executed on 27.3.2024. The petitioners submitted Ext.P2 for registration before the 2nd respondent on 9.7.2024. The 2nd respondent denied the registration of Ext.P2 and issued Ext.P4 order stating that the petitioners have to pay the registration fee based on the enhanced stamp duty which came into effect from 1.4.2024. It is challenging Ext.P4, the petitioners have approached this court.

3. I have heard Smt. Mariya Rajan, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Deepa V., the learned Government Pleader.

4. As per Section 78 of the Registration Act, the State Government shall prepare a Table of Fees payable for the registration of the documents. Accordingly, the Government of Kerala prepared a Table of Fee under Section 78 of the Registration Act for registration of the documents in Book Nos. 1 and 4 other than a power of attorney. Article I(a)(1) of the Table of Fees specifies that for registration of documents in Books 1 and 4 other than a power of attorney, the registration fee is 2% of the value. Article I(c) specifies that unless otherwise directed, the value usually adopted for calculating stamp duty shall be the value for the purpose of determining the registration fee. As per Section 17 of the Kerala Stamp Act, all instruments chargeable with duty and executed by any person in the State of Kerala shall be stamped before or at the time of execution. Therefore, the stamp duty payable as on the date of execution of the instrument as per the Schedule of the Stamp Act is the stamp duty payable on the instrument. Serial No.33 in the Schedule to the Stamp Act deals with the stamp duty payable on lease. The petitioners have admittedly paid the stamp duty payable on Ext.P2 as prescribed under Serial No.33 in the Schedule to the Stamp Act as on the date of execution of Ext.P2, i.e., on 27.3.2024. However, the stamp duty for the lease under Serial No.33 in the Schedule to the Stamp Act was enhanced as per the Kerala Finance Bill which came into effect from 1.4.2024. The document was presented for registration thereafter on 9.7.2024. The stand taken by the 2nd respondent is that the registration fee of 2% has to be calculated on the stamp duty prevailing as on the date of registration. The said stand of the 2nd respondent cannot be justified. The petitioners need to pay only the stamp duty payable as on the date of the execution of the deed. The 2% of the registration fee has to be calculated on the said amount. Hence, Ext.P4 stands set aside.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top