Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 22224
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION – Appellant
Versus
G.K.RAMESH KHUMAAR – Respondent
A document kept pending under the Registration Act cannot be returned for amendments without fulfilling the applicable stamp duty requirements.
Headnote:
Registration - Mortgages - Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 33, 61 - The court interpreted that once a document is presented for registration and kept as pending, it cannot be returned for amendments under the provisions of the Registration Act, affirming the requirement of stamp duty on identified documents.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents submitted a mortgage by conditional sale for registration. The Registering Officer demanded stamp duty, leading to a writ petition where the respondents sought to amend the document to a simple mortgage.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the Registering Officer's demand for stamp duty was justified and that the permission to amend the document and re-present it was beyond the scope of the Registration Act.
Issues: Whether the Registering Officer can return a document submitted for registration to allow corrections under the Registration Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that once a document is pending registration, it cannot be returned for amendment without fulfilling stamp duty obligations, in alignment with Sections 33 and 61 of the Registration Act.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was allowed, setting aside the previous order allowing the respondents to amend the document.
J U D G M E N T
[JUDGMENT OF THE COURT WAS DELIVERED BY S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]
The respondents in the writ petition, are the appellants before us.
2. The respondents herein presented mortgage by conditional sale for registration. The document was accepted by the Registering Officer and kept as pending document. Subsequently, the Registering Officer demanded stamp duty on the ground that the document presented for registration is mortgage by conditional sale. The recitals in the document also reveal that conditions are explicit. In the event of failure to return the document, the same will be converted as sale. Thus the Registering Authority demanded stamp duty as applicable. However, the respondents filed writ petition stating that they are ready to make necessary corrections in the document, namely, mortgage by conditional sale, as simple mortgage and the said document may be released.
3. The learned Single Judge permitted the respondents/writ petitioners to re-present the document without any conditional clause as simple mortgage deed. If any such document is presented by the writ petitioners/respondents, the appellants are directed to register the same.
4. Question of return of document would not arise in the present case, since the document was taken on file and kept as pending document under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. Once the document is taken on file for registration and kept as pending Document No.148 of 2021, then direction to return the document to the presentant under the provisions of the Registration Act,1908, would not arise at all.
5. Mr.B.Vijay, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the appellants, would contend that the permission granted to respondents to re-present the document is beyond the scope of the provisions of Registration Act. Once the document is identified as mortgage by conditional sale, the Registering Officer is empowered to recover the stamp duty, as applicable, as pending document, cannot be returned and there is no provision under Registration Act, to return the document to the presentant.
6. In support of the said contention, the learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the appellants, relied on the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Inspector General of Registration vs. P.G.Jose and Others [pronounced on 31.08.2012 in Writ Appeal No.65 of 2011], wherein in paragraph-9, it has been observed as under:-
“9. Admittedly, eighth respondent was not before the Sub Registrar. The Sub Registrar found that all the executants have not appeared before him and as such, the document was not registered.
The respondents 1 to 4 wanted a specific direction from the Writ Court to register the document without keeping it pending on account of the non appearance of eighth respondent. The learned Single Judge moulded the relief so as to enable respondents 1 to 4 to get the document registered. There is no provision in the Registration Act, to amend the document which has already been produced before the Registrar. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The impugned order is accordingly, set aside.”
7. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) and Another vs. M.Alfred [2017 (5) LW 212], wherein in paragraph-21, it has observed as under:-
"21. The object of the Registration Act is to give certainty to the title, preventing fraud, give evidentiary value to the documents and make them public (See In Re, Official Liquidator, High Court [2010 (2) CTC 113]). Therefore, the provisions of the Registration Act and the Stamp Act are acting on their respective fields to achieve their distinct objects. They are not in pari materia. While Indian Stamp Act is actually a fiscal enactment, the Registration Act gives sanctity to the transactions. Section 61 of the Registration Act deals with endorsement and certificates to be copied and documents
