IMPORTANT POINTS:
The registration fee shall be the same as the fee leviable on the original document, subject to a maximum of Rs.500/-. So the clear fall out of the provision in clause (1)(s) of Table of Registration Fee is that where the registration fee is one in relation to a sale deed and so long as the deed of rectification is one which does not create, transfer, limit, extend, extinguish or record any right or liability, then such a deed of rectification should be registered, subject to levy of registration fee, which is the same as the one on the original document, but subject to a maximum of Rs.500/-. So in a case where rectification deed is one in relation to a sale deed like Ext.P-1, then the registration fee leviable is the one applicable for registration of a sale deed, but subject to a maximum of Rs.500/-.

1. The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

“(i) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction to call for records leading to Ext.P-4, P-6 & P-7 and quash the same and declare that no exigible stamp duty is payable on Ext-P2.

(ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to the respondents to consider Ext.P5 representation and exempt the petitioner from remitting the additional stamp duty and fine with respect to Ext.P2 sale deed.

And

(iii) to grant such other reliefs and to pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard Smt.K.Deepa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. Pursuant to the agreement for sale of immovable property entered into by the petitioner with the land owners concerned, Ext.P-1 sale deed No.1537/1/2013 dated 17.05.2013 has been duly executed and registered before the SRO, Payyoli. The immediate prior title of the subject property is on the basis of registered sale deed No.1537/1/2013 of SRO, Payyoli. Pursuant to the agreement for sale entered into by the petitioner with joint land owners concerned, Ext.P-2 sale deed dated 06.05.2015 has been duly executed in favour of the petitioner for the sale of the subject property and the same has been duly registered before the 2nd respondent- SRO, Payyoli. The prior title deed in respect of the subject property covered by Ext.P-2 is Ext.P-1 registered sale deed No.1537/1 dated 17.05.2013 of SRO, Payyoli. Pursuant to the registration Ext.P-2 deed, the 2nd respondent has issued Ext.P3 duplicate receipt dated 07.05.2015, whereby the petitioner has been instructed to collect the registered document within 15 days from the date of registration. Later, the petitioner has been served with the impugned Ext.P-4 provisionally proposing order dated 11.05.2015 issued by the 3rd respondent-District Registrar (General), holding that the petitioner is liable to pay an extra amount of Rs.42,000/-, which is inclusive of additional stamp duty of Rs.41,500/- and ten times the amount, by way of penalty within seven days. The ground for provisionally proposing of additional stamp duty and penalty as stated in Ext.P-3 is that in the prior title deeds, the subject property covered by Ext.P-2 sale deed has been described as “Jenmavakasham Rights/Janmam Rights, whereas in Ext.P-2, the description of the nature of the rights of the land of the property is shown as “Kanam Kuzhikkanam” and that therefore there is a material change in regard to the subject property in Ext.P-2 deed. The title deed prior to Ext.P-1 is stated to be registered document No.1179/1961 of SRO, Payyoli, whereby the property had originally belonged to Asya Umma, who possessed the same only as per “Kanam Kuzhikkanam rights” and not “Jenmavakasham Rights”. That after the death of Asya Umma, the property had devolved upon her legal heirs and her legal heirs had possessed the property as her “Kanam Kuzhikanam rights” during the year 1986 and later the property was partitioned as per registered partition deed No.319/1986 of SRO, Payyoli, wherein nature of the right on the basis of the property is shown as “Jenmavakasham”. Thus it appears that in Ext.P-1, which is the immediate prior title deed (sale deed No.1537/1 dated 17.05.2013) as well as in registered partition deed No.319/1986 of SRO, Payyoli, the nature of the rights on the basis of the property is shown as “Jenmavakasham”, whereas in the registered document No.1179/1961 of SRO, Payyoli, on the basis of which the aforesaid prior predecessor Smt. Asya Umma has held the property, was shown as “Kanam Kuzhikkanam”.

4. According to the petitioner, the Jenmam rights/Jenmavakasham rights in respect of the subject property has been never assigned to the previous land owner/possessor by the competent statutory authorities