AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.K. Rajan, J.—The writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to release the document No.
2549/1997 filed before him for registration on 25.9.1997.
In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner purchased an extent of 2410 sq.ft in Survey No. 708/1,
714/1(Part) at Pallapatti Village, Dindigul Taluk within the registration district of Sub Registrar, Dindigul-II. The owners of the property executed
the sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 25.9.1997. The sale deed was presented for registration to the third respondent and the document was
given the number 2549/1997. The property was valued for the purpose of registration at Rs. 48, 200/- and the stamp duty of Rs. 5, 802/- was
paid. The third respondent felt that the value of the agricultural land would be more. Hence he referred the matter to the Special Deputy Collector
(Stamps), Madurai-20 who determined the value of the property at Rs. 1, 37, 370/-and by order dated 13.11.1998 he called upon the petitioner
to pay a sum of Rs. 16, 487/- towards stamp duty. The petitioner paid the same on 8.12.1998. Even thereafter the third respondent did not
release the document.
The petitioner issued a notice to the third respondent on 28.3.1999. Thereafter by letter dated 31.3.1999 the second respondent informed the
petitioner that even though the stamp duty had already been remitted, the document will be returned only if the first respondent directs to that
effect. The action of the second respondent in retaining the document is illegal. Hence the writ petition has been filed.
The first respondent has filed a counter wherein it is stated that the document was presented before the Joint II Sub Registrar, Dindigul on
22.9.1997 and the document was assigned the number 2549/1997. The Sub Registrar found that the market value of the property was not
correctly mentioned and hence referred the document to the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) for initiating action u/s 47-A of the Indian Stamp
Act. The Special Deputy Collector, after inspection, valued the property at Rs. 1, 37, 3370/- and the deficit stamp duty was also collected. The
document was returned to the Sub Registrar concerned.
In the meanwhile the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Soundararaja Perumal Thirukoil, Dindigul by his letter dated 11.12.1997 had informed that
the property transferred belongs to the temple and requested to cancel the registration of the document. That communication was received after the
registration of the document and hence the Executive Officer was directed to approach the appropriate court. Since the document affects the
property belongs to the temple, the same was not returned to the parties. In order to protect the property that belong to the temple, the first
respondent has instructed not to return the document so as to enable the temple authorities to take suitable action.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the document has been registered on payment of the entire stamp duty on the market
value, the document cannot be retained by the Registrar''s Office. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this court in SUKUMARAN v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 2002 (2) CTC 329. But that judgment has no application to the facts of the present case.
As seen from the counter affidavit, the reason for not returning of the document is that the Executive Officer of Soundararaja Perumal Koil has
written a letter stating that the property conveyed was the property of the temple and the officer requested the respondent not to release the
document. The stand taken by the first respondent is not legally sustainable.
When the document has been registered on payment of stamp duty, there is no power for the registering authority to retain the document. If the
property does not belong to the vendor who executed the sale deed and it belongs to someone else, the real owner may file a suit, before the
appropriate court, to set aside the document. Further by any deed of conveyance executed by a person who had no right over the property that is
conveyed, no right is conveyed. In such cases, the purchaser takes the risk of losing his money. But on that ground the registering authority or the
Collector cannot refuse to return the document registered. The action of the respondent in refusing to release the document on the ground that the
sale deed was executed by the person who was not the real owner is not legally sustainable. It is not for the registering authority to verify as to
whether the vendor in the sale deed has a right to convey the property mentioned therein. Therefore the action of the respondents is not legal. It is
nothing but highhandedness on the part of the respondents. The respondents have no right whatsoever to retain the document when once it has
been registered in accordance with the Rules.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. The third respondent is directed to deliver the document forthwith to the
petitioner herein on receipt of the copy of this order. Consequently W.M.P. 27827/99 is closed.