Kerala High Court
The State Of Kerala vs Sunny on 1 December, 2025
Author: T.R.Ravi
Bench: T.R.Ravi
OP(C) NO. 1510 OF 2016
1
2025:KER:92646
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
OP(C) NO. 1510 OF 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.09.2015 IN CMA NO.59 OF 2014 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT IV, THODUPUZHA
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN CMA:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI.
2 THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR
THODUPUZHA.
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT IN CMA:
SUNNY
S/O. KURIAKOSE, MANNANAL HOUSE,
CHENKARA KARA, KUMALY VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK.
BY ADVS
SRI.K.M.KURIAN
SRI. M. I. JOHNSON.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C) NO. 1510 OF 2016
2
2025:KER:92646
T.R.RAVI.J
------------------------------------
OP(C) No.1510 of 2016
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 01st day of December, 2025
JUDGMENT
The original petition has been filed challenging the order of the Additional District Court IV, Thodupuzha in CMA No.59/2014. The matter arises out of proceedings initiated under the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959. The appellant had purchased 1 Are 82 sq.meter of land comprised in Re.Sy.No.26/11 in Block No.66 in Anavilasam Village as per Sale Deed No.1669/12 of SRO, Kattappana for a total consideration of Rs.2,85,700/-. The SRO, Kattappana reported to the District Registrar that the property has been undervalued. According to the SRO, the property including the house worth Rs.6 lakhs. The District Registrar accepted the report of the SRO and issued final order valuing the property at Rs.6 lakhs and directed the respondent to pay the deficit stamp value. Aggrieved by the order of the District Registrar, the respondent approached the Court by filing CMA.No.59 of OP(C) NO. 1510 OF 2016 3 2025:KER:92646 2014 under Section 45B of the Kerala Stamp Act. The District Court allowed the appeal by Ext.P5 order and the order of the District Registrar was set aside. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the State has preferred this appeal.
2. The contention of the appellant is that the market value of the property should have been adopted and that the market value is much higher than the amount shown in the document. Placing reliance on the judgments of this Court in State of Kerala and Others Vs. Jino Joseph [2012 (2) KHC 25] and Rahim Baker vs. Sub Registrar [AIR 2002 Kerala 27], the Court below found that the parties cannot escape from the clutches of Section 45B and the value or consideration should have been truly set forth in the instrument. It cannot be said that the legislative intention was to levy stamp duty on the market value. The Court held that, if such an interpretation is placed, Section 28A of the Act would become redundant. The District Court had rendered the judgment after considering the relevant portions of law and the binding decisions of this Court.
OP(C) NO. 1510 OF 2016 4 2025:KER:92646
3. The counsel for the respondent submitted that apart from the reason stated by the District Court, the fact remains that the order of the District Registrar is in a typed format and it does not show any reason. It is submitted that such orders cannot be issued in proceedings of this nature, since the parties are entitled to know the reason for which the decision is taken. I find considerable merit in the said contention also. No grounds are made out. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
T.R.RAVI JUDGE sn OP(C) NO. 1510 OF 2016 5 2025:KER:92646 APPENDIX OF OP(C) NO. 1510 OF 2016 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SUB REGISTRAR. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ORDER NO.UV II/4/12/KTPA DATED 17.7.2013.
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER NO.UVII/4/12/KTPA DATED 2.9.2013. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMA NO.59/2014.