Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 73026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (Stamps) – Appellant
Versus
T.M.NITHYANANDAM – Respondent
WA No. 1675 of 2022 | CMP No. 11510 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: U. Baranidharan
For the Respondents: C. P. Sivamohan, R. Sivaraman
Suppression of material facts regarding a final order under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act and failure to challenge it renders a writ petition for release of the deed not maintainable.
Headnote:(A) Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Sections 47A(1) and 47A(5) - Suppression of material facts - Writ jurisdiction - Maintainability - A final order under Section 47A of the Act, unchallenged by way of statutory appeal, cannot be circumvented by filing a writ petition seeking release of the registered document - Suppression of facts regarding earlier writ proceedings and final order amounts to abuse of process and vitiates the writ order. (Paras 16-19)
(B) Civil Procedure - Suppression of facts - A party seeking equitable relief must approach the court with clean hands - Deliberate non-disclosure of material facts including dismissal of earlier writ petition and writ appeal, and existence of final order under the Stamp Act, disentitles the party to any relief. (Paras 16-18)
Facts of the case:
The respondent purchased a trust property in a court auction. The sale deed was executed by the Principal District Judge on 07.01.2014 and registered. The Sub-Registrar referred the document under Section 47A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act for deficit stamp duty. The respondent challenged the Form-I notice in W.P.No.15143 of 2014, which was dismissed as premature, and the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the District Revenue Officer (Stamps) passed a final order on 02.12.2016 demanding Rs.14,71,160/- as deficit stamp duty. Without challenging that final order or filing a statutory appeal, the respondent filed a fresh writ petition (W.P.No.14155 of 2017) seeking a direction to release the sale deed, suppressing the earlier proceedings and the final order. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, leading to the present appeal by the State.
Findings of Court:
The respondent suppressed material facts regarding the dismissal of the earlier writ petition and writ appeal, as well as the final order under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act. The final order remained unchallenged and became binding. The writ petition seeking release of the document was not maintainable as it attempted to bypass the statutory remedy. Suppression of facts led to the erroneous grant of relief by the Single Judge. The writ order was set aside.
Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition for release of a registered sale deed is maintainable when a final order under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act has been passed and not challenged? (ii) Whether suppression of material facts regarding earlier proceedings and final order vitiates the writ petition?
Ratio Decidendi: A final order under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act must be challenged through the statutory appeal mechanism under Section 47A(5); a writ petition cannot be used to circumvent such an order. Additionally, suppression of material facts, including the existence of a final order and earlier litigation, is a ground to deny relief and set aside any order obtained thereby.
Result: Writ Appeal allowed. The order dated 11.12.2019 in W.P.No.14155 of 2017 is set aside. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition closed. (Para 19)
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)
Under assail is the writ order 11.12.2019 in W.P.No.14155 of 2017. The Special Tahsildar (Stamps) and the Sub-Registrar, Ambattur are the appellant before this Court. The respondent/Mr.T.M.Nithyanandam has instituted a writ petition seeking a direction to the appellants to release the Sale Deed dated 07.01.2014 executed by the Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur, sequel to Court auction sale.
2. The facts in brief would show that in 1993, Paramasiva Chettiar Trust represented by its Managing Trustee filed Trust O.P.No.172 of 1993 seeking permission to sell trust property. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed for the sale of trust property on 30.11.1994. The trust property was brought to auction and the respondent offered to purchase the trust land for a sum of Rs.3,90,000/- on 22.07.1998. Accordingly, Trust O.P.No.172 of 1993 was disposed of on 31.07.1998 by passing an order that the Trust shall execute a Sale Deed within a period of two months from the date of obtaining approval of draft sale deed from the Court.
3. No action was taken thereafter. There were discrepancies in the schedule of the property with respect to extent of land. In the year 1999, I.A.SR.No.2493 of 1999 was filed and it was rejected. C.R.P.(PD).No.3972 of 1999 was filed before the High Court. One of the Trustees, Mr.K.Palanisamy Chettiar filed I.A.No.246 of 1999 on 09.07.1999 praying for an order for distribution of the amount lying in Court deposit, which was came to be allowed on 09.05.2002.
4. The Civil Revision Petition was allowed by this Court on 24.09.2004, directing the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu to carry out necessary amendment in the draft sale deed produced in Trust O.P.No.172 of 1993 and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Accordingly, amendments were initiated in 2005, and the draft Sale Deed was approved on 24.11.2005, by the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu. However, the Managing Trustee orally declined to execute Sale Deed on 04.04.2006 and issued a legal notice to the Successor Managing Trustee Mr.G.Sivaramakrishna Chettiar asking him to execute the Sale Deed.
5. Mr.G.Sivaramakrishna Chettiar did not respond to the notice and filed I.A.No.197 of 2006, seeking a direction to compel attendance of the trustee to execute the sale deed or in alternate prayed that the Court may execute the Sale Deed. Direction was issued in the said Interlocutory Application. Trust O.P. was transferred subsequently to the District Court at Tirvallur due to bifurcation/territorial jurisdiction and I.A.No.197 of 2006 was renumbered as I.A.No.968 of 2008 and was allowed, directing the Managing Trustee to execute the Sale Deed. Subsequent proceedings went on and finally the sale deed was executed by the Court after a prolonged delay on 07.01.2014.
6. The Sale Deed executed by the Court was presented for registration and registered as Document No.980 of 2014. Document was referred under Section 47A(1) of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] by the Sub Registrar to the District Revenue Officer (Stamps) on 26.03.2014. The District Revenue Officer (Stamps) issued a Form-I Notice under the Indian Stamp Act on 07.04.2014, calling upon the respondent to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.15,61,880/-.
7. Challenging the said Form-I Notice, respondent filed writ petition in W.P.No.15143 of 2014, but the Writ Court dismissed the same on 13.06.2014 on the ground that the writ petition is premature. The Writ Court further directed the respondent to follow the procedures as contemplated under the Act. The respondent subsequently filed W.A.No.958 of 2014 and the Division Bench of this Court affirmed the order of this Court by dismissing the writ appeal vide order dated 04.08.2014.
8. Subsequent to the order of the Division Bench, District Revenue Officer (Stamps) passed final orders under Section 47A of the Act vide proceedings dated 02.12.2016, calling upon t
