IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 31.08.2020

CORAM :

The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

W.P.No.24289 of 2017 and

W.M.P. No.25672 of 2017

K. Palaniammal

... Petitioner

.vs.

1. District Registrar (Administration),

Namakkal.

2. Joint Sub Registrar – II,

Namakkal.

... Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India for issuing a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling

for the records of the 1^st respondent dated 21.12.2016 and made

in I.No.37/Aal/2016, quash the same and direct the 2^nd respondent

to return the Partition deed dated 19.01.2016 bearing Pending

Document No.10 of 2016.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.Tranquebar Dorai Vasu

For Respondents

:

Mr.P.P.Purushothaman

Govt. Advocate

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a

Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the

1^st respondent dated 21.12.2016 to quash the same and direct the

2^nd respondent to return the Partition deed dated 19.01.2016

bearing Pending Document No.10 of 2016.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner

presented a partition deed dated 19.01.2016 for registration

before the 2^nd respondent in Pending Document No.10 of 2016. On

15.11.2016, the 1^st respondent directed the petitioner to pay

the additional stamp duty of Rs.1,08,49,880/- . Subsequently on

30.11.2016, the 1^st respondent sent a communication to the

petitioner stating that the document could not be returned

without registration. On 01.12.2016, the petitioner's family

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

members requested the 1^st respondent to return the Pending

Document No.10 of 2016 without registration, thereafter, the 1^st

respondent issued the impugned order dated 21.12.2016 calling

upon the petitioner to pay the additional stamp duty of

Rs.1,08,49,880/- , failing which, they will proceed under

section 48 of the Stamp Act to recover the same. Subsequently,

by letter dated 25.07.2017, the petitioner, as per Rule 107 of

the Registration Rules framed by the Government of Tamil Nadu

under section 69 of the Registration Act, as per Clause 17(2)

(b)(iv) of the Table of fees, prepared under section 78 of the

Registration Act, 1908, requested the 2^nd respondent to return

the pending Document No.10 of 2016 without registration.

However, the respondents refused to return the pending document

without registration. Hence, the petitioner has filed the

present Writ Petition.

3. Mr.Tranquebar Dorai Vasu, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the present

Writ Petition is covered by the decision of this Court

reported in 2018 (1) CTC 309 [Purushothaman Nath Rallan v. The

Inspector General of registration cum the Chief Controlling

Revenue Authority, Chennai and others], wherein I had an

occasion to deal with this issue and held as follows:-

“ ... 14. On a perusal of Rule 107 of the

Registration Rules, it could be seen that when an

impounded document is received back from the

Collector have adjudication of stamp duty, the

Registering Officer shall immediately give notice in

writing to the presentant or to the person authorized

by the presentant to take delivery of the document

either to take steps to complete the registration of

the document or to take delivery of the document.

From Rule 107, it is clear that even after

adjudication of the stamp duty, the Registering

Officer should give notice in writing to the

executant either to take steps to complete the

registration of the document by paying the

adjudicated stamp duty or to take delivery of the

document. The words either to take steps to complete

the registration of the document or to take delivery

of the document would mean that the executant should

pay the necessary stamp duty as adjudicated by t