Madras High Court
Joint Sub-Registrar-Ii vs Ms.Lissy Lakshmi on 5 August, 2022
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Judgment dated 05.08.2022
in W.A.No.1793 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 05.08.2022
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
--
Writ Appeal No.1793 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.13135 of 2022
----
Joint Sub-Registrar-II,
Thousand Lights,
No.108, Barathi Salai,
Royapettah,
Chennai-600 014. .. Appellant
Vs.
Ms.Lissy Lakshmi
(previously known as Mrs.Lissy Priyadarshan) .. Respondent
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 30.04.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P.No.24774
of 2016, on the file of this Court.
For appellant: Mr.R.Neelakandan, Addl. Advocate General
assisted by Mr.P.Muthukumar, State Govt. Pleader
For respondent : Mr.Kuberan
Page No.1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Judgment dated 05.08.2022
in W.A.No.1793 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Honourable Chief Justice) We have heard the appeal to find out as to whether there is any merit therein.
2. The Writ Petition was filed by the respondent herein to seek a direction to release of the deed, dated 15.02.2016, pending Document No.50 of 2016, after making necessary endorsement, as may be required.
3. The facts in the matter are in reference to the issuance of sale certificate, after auction by the Income Tax authorities and it was sent to the Registrar as per Section 89(2) of the Registration Act to file in Book No.P1 and accordingly, the sale certificate was kept in Book No.P.1. After a lapse of ten years, the husband of the respondent/writ petitioner executed release deed in her favour to settle the property. The said release deed was not registered, in the absence of the payment of stamp duty on the sale certificate as otherwise required under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. The respondent thus filed the Writ Petition to seek a direction for handing over the release deed, pending as Document No.50 of 2016, after necessary endorsement.
Page No.2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Judgment dated 05.08.2022 in W.A.No.1793 of 2022
4. As against the aforesaid prayer, the learned Single Judge has passed the following order in the Writ Petition:
"17. Thus, in the instance case the sale certificate issued in the auction sale to the petitioner is not compulsorily registrable under the Registration Act and that the title passes on to the auction purchaser upon issuance of the sale certificate. Once the title of the joint owners are confirmed, there is no impediment in releasing the title to the other co-owner. Curiously, the Release Deed presented for Registration is in order and the same is registered. As stated supra, once sale is confirmed and Sale Certificate issued as early as on 04.05.2005, the respondent is wrong in demanding the stamp duty for the Sale Certificate."
5. The operative portion of the order quoted above, goes beyond the prayer made by the writ petitioner and otherwise shown to be in ignorance of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. Distinction has to be made between compulsory registration of the document and the stamping of the document. It may be that the document may not require compulsory registration under the Registration Act, but, it does not mean that for further purpose of conveying the property, even the stamp duty is to be ignored. Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act requires stamping of document and otherwise, it would not be admissible in evidence. When the document is not admissible in Page No.3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Judgment dated 05.08.2022 in W.A.No.1793 of 2022 evidence, it cannot be used for purposes, unless it is stamped.
6. In view of the above, we find reason to modify the operative portion of the order of the learned Single Judge in reference to the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to hand over the release deed to the writ petitioner with necessary endorsement as per the provisions of law. The writ petitioner would be at liberty to take the remedy thereupon, if she so chooses and as provided under law.
7. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P. is closed.
(M.N.B., C J.) (D.B.C., J.)
05.08.2022
Index: Yes/no
Speaking Order: Yes/no
cs
To
Joint Sub-Registrar-II,
Thousand Lights,
No.182, Barathi Salai,
Royapettah, Chennai-600 014.
Page No.4/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Judgment dated 05.08.2022
in W.A.No.1793 of 2022
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
cs
W.A.No.1793 of 2022
05.08.2022
Page No.5/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis