Advocates:
['M/S D SHIVAKUMARAN', '', 'V SEKAR', 'S MAYILNATHAN', 'S MACCALIFF', 'AGP']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.11.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

W.P.No.11096 of 2014

and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014

Sengottian

...Petitioner

-Vs-

The Sub-Registrar,

Senthamangalam,

Namakkal District.

...Respondent

Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of

Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records relating

to the proceedings in P.Doc.No.8/2009, dated 12.08.2013 from the

file of the respondent and quash the same and further direct the

respondent to register the said document by taking into

consideration of the fact that the stamp duty payable by the

petitioner is only 1% of the value of the share allotted to the

petitioner's wife namely the 1^st plaintiff in O.S.No.115 of 2008

on the file of the District Munsif Court, Namakkal.

For Petitioner

: Mr.D.Shivakumaran

For Respondent : Mr.A.Selvendran

Government Advocate.

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed for the

issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the

entire records relating to the proceedings in P.Doc.No.8/2009,

dated 12.08.2013 from the file of the respondent and quash the

same and further direct the respondent to register the said

document by taking into consideration of the fact that the stamp

duty payable by the petitioner is only 1% of the value of the

share allotted to the petitioner's wife namely the 1^st plaintiff

in O.S.No.115 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court,

Namakkal.

2.

Heard

Mr.D.Shivakumaran,

learned

counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Selvendran, learned

Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.

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

3.

The respondent issued the impugned notice, dated

12.08.2013 and thereby directed the petitioner to pay the

deficit stamp duty and the balance registration fees of

Rs.95,865/- (Rupees Ninety Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty

Five only). According to the petitioner, the respondent already

issued the very same notice on 06.07.2009 which was challenged

before this Court in W.P.No.2386 of 2010. On 14.06.2013, this

Court while setting aside the said notice dated 06.07.2009

passed the following order:-

3. The learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that in Writ Appeal No.2395 of

2003 vide judgment dated 23.3.2007, the Division

Bench of this Court considered the very same issue

and rendered judgment giving direction to register

the document even if it was presented after four

months. The order of the Single Judge dated

04.4.2003 was set aside and the writ Appeal was

allowed. In paragraph 8 of the judgment, the Division

Bench held as follows:-

"8. It is useful to refer section 23 of the

Registration Act which speaks about the time for

presenting documents and reads as follows:

'23.

Time

for

presenting

documents.

Subject to the provisions contained

in Section 24, 25 and 26, no document other

than a will shall be accepted for

registration unless presented for that

purpose to the proper officer within four

months from the date of its execution:

Provided that a copy of a decree or

order may be presented within four months

from the day on which the decree or order

was made, or, where it is appealable, within

four months from the day on which it becomes

final."

The above provision makes it clear that all

documents except will are to be presented before

a proper officer and the same shall be presented

within four months from the date of its

execution. If we consider the date on which the

final decree was passed by the Subordinate Court,

as rightly pointed out by the learned Government

Advocate, the document presented before the

respondent is hopelessly barred by time.

https://hcservice