JUDGMENT

The petitioners are aggrieved by the stand taken by the 3rd respondent/Sub Registrar to treat the rectification deed presented by them for registration as conveyance (sale deed), as described under Serial No.21 in the Schedule to Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (for short 'the Stamp Act'), for the purpose of levying stamp duty.

2. The 1^st petitioner, along with other sellers, sold a total extent of 226.88 cents of land in various survey numbers of Kannadi-1 Village in Palakkad District in favour of the 2^nd petitioner and other buyers as per Ext.P1 sale deed. Subsequently, it was noticed that the boundaries of various items of properties got mixed up, and the boundaries of some of the properties were wrongly described in the sale deed. According to the petitioners, it was an error that crept in due to a clerical mistake while executing the sale deed. Therefore, the 1^st petitioner, along with other sellers in the Ext.P1 sale deed, prepared Ext.P2 rectification deed in favour of the 2^nd petitioner and other buyers and presented it for registration before the 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent by Ext.P3 memo held that Ext.P2 should be reckoned as a sale deed and the stamp duty as per the prevalent rates should be levied on it. It is challenging Ext.P3, the petitioners have approached this Court.

3. I have heard Sri. Jacob Sebastian, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader Sri. B.S. Syamanthak. The 3^rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that by executing Ext.P2, the petitioners wanted to correct the mistake that crept in the description of boundaries of some of the items of properties in the schedule of Ext.P1 and it does not create or extinguish any right other than what was conveyed in Ext.P1 and hence the stand taken by the 3^rd respondent that Ext.P2 should be treated as sale deed for the purpose of payment of stamp duty cannot be justified. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: Baburaj P.K. & Others v. State of Kerala & Others (2019 (2) KHC 628), Jihas P.A. v. District Registrar and another (2012 (3) KHC 146), Rajesh Kumar K.T. v. State of Kerala (2024 (3) KHC 425), Vannathi Valappil Mahmood v. State of Kerala and Others [2019 (2) KHC 736], Madras Refineries Ltd. v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, Madras [(1977) 2 SCC 308]. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submitted that it is not a case of mere correction of the boundaries of certain items of properties which have been misdescribed, but even the identity of certain items of properties have been drastically changed. Therefore, a new right is created which attracts stamp duty as that of a conveyance deed under Serial No.21 in the Schedule to the Stamp Act, submitted the learned Government Pleader.

5. A rectification deed is often executed to correct minor errors or genuine or unintentional mistakes that do not affect the interest or fundamental terms of the original document or change the nature of the transaction. It is a supplementary document that nullifies mistakes and corrections in the original document. The Stamp Act or the Registration Act does not define a rectification deed. By virtue of the powers conferred under Section 78 of the Registration Act, the State Government has notified a Table of Fees for different transactions covered therein. Clause I(s) of the Table of Fees refers to a deed which can be treated as a rectification deed. It gives sufficient indication as to what is a rectification deed. It states that the rectification deed does not create, transfer, limit, extend, extinguish or record any right. Therefore, the wrong description of the boundaries, survey number, or any other description of the property which does not create, transfer or record any fresh right can be rectified through a rectification deed [See Baburaj P.K. (supra)].

6. The Schedule to Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, provides for stamp duty and registration fee