Madras High Court
Mr.J.Chelladurai vs The District Registrar on 14 October, 2014
Bench: M.Jaichandren, Aruna Jagadeesan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14-10-2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN Writ Appeal No.436 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 1. Mr.J.Chelladurai 2. Jeya Pravinth .. Appellants Versus 1. The District Registrar, District Registrar Office, Periyakulam, Theni District. 2. The Inspector General (Registration) cum The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Santhome High Road, Chennai-600 028. .. Respondents. Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, against the order of the learned single Judge, made in W.P.No.23094 of 2009, dated 9.6.2010. For Appellants : Mr.C.R.Krishnamoorthy For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajeswaran Spl.G.P (R1 & R2) JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by M.Jaichandren,J.) This writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 9.6.2010, made in W.P.No.23094 of 2009.
2. The petitioners in the Writ Petition, in W.P.No.23094 of 2009, are the appellants in the present Writ Appeal. The appellants had filed the Writ Petition praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for and quash the order of the first respondent, dated 20.3.2007, as confirmed by the second respondent, by the order, dated 17.9.2009.
3. It has been stated that the second appellant is the grand son of the first appellant. The second appellant had executed a Deed of Settlement, dated 5.1.2004, in favour of the first appellant. The said document had been presented for registration before the Joint Registrar-II, Periyakulam. On analysing the document the registering authority had directed the appellants to pay the deficit stamp duty as the settlement was not between the members of the family. The appellants had been directed to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,66,080/-, along with the proper registration fees. The first respondent had issued a certificate, dated 20.3.2007, directing the appellants to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,66,080/-, along with the registration fees. Aggrieved by the issuance of the certificate, by the first respondent, the appellants had filed an appeal before the second respondent. The said appeal had been dismissed. Thereafter, the appellants had filed a Writ Petition before this court, in W.P.No.23094 of 2009. The learned single Judge had dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants by his order, dated 9.6.2010, holding that the definition of family under Explanation to Article 58, Schedule -I of the Indian Stamp (Tamilnadu Amendment) Act, 31 of 2004, would not include the grand father and therefore, the said settlement cannot be said to be between the members of the family. Challenging the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 9.6.2010, the petitioners in the Writ Petition have filed the present Writ Appeal before this court.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants had contended that the issuance of the certificate by the first respondent, directing the appellants to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,66,080/- and the confirmation of the same by the second respondent cannot be held to be valid in the eye of law, as the settlement had been entered into between the members of a family. The amount of stamp duty payable in respect of the settlement would be much less than the amount demanded by the first respondent.
5. The learned counsel had also submitted that the definition of a family under the explanation to Article 58, Schedule -I of the Indian Stamp (Tamilnadu Amendment) Act, 31 of 2004, is inclusive in nature and therefore, it would include the grand father. Therefore, the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 9.6.2010, holding that the appellants are liable to pay the stamp duty, as claimed by the first respondent, by his impugned order, dated 20.3.2007, as confirmed by the second respondent, by the order, dated 17.9.2009, cannot be held to be correct in the eye of law.
6. Per contra the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the first respondent was right in directing the appellants to pay the stamp duty of Rs.1,66,080/-, as the stamp duty payable for the transactions relating to the property in question, as it cannot be held to be a settlement between the members of a family, as defined under Explanation to Article 58, Schedule -I of the Indian Stamp (Tamilnadu Amendment) Act, 31 of 2004. From the explanation to Article 58, Schedule -I of the Indian Stamp (Tamilnadu Amendment) Act, 31 of 2004, it is clear that the grand father cannot be held to be a member of the family. As such the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the stamp duty payable in respect of the settlement deed would be much less than the amount claimed by the first respondent, by its order, dated 20.3.2007, cannot be sustained.
7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, we are of the considered view that the appellants have not shown sufficient cause or reason for this court to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 9.6.2010. The learned single Judge had rightly held that the stamp duty payable by the appellants, in respect of the settlement deed said to have been entered into between the grand father and the grand son, relating to the property in question, cannot be held to be invalid. From a reading of Article 58, Schedule -I of the Indian Stamp (Tamilnadu Amendment) Act, 31 of 2004, and the explanation found therein it is clear that the definition of a `family' does not include a grand father. The definition of a family in the said provision cannot be given wider interpretation, as claimed by the appellants. The learned single Judge has rightly held that the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants cannot be countenanced and that the directions issued by the first respondent, directing the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.1,66,080/-, as the stamp duty payable by them, is correct in the eye of law. In such view of the matter, we find it appropriate to dismiss the writ appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(M.J.J.) (A.J.J.)
Index:Yes/No 14-10-2014
Internet:Yes/No
csh
To
1. The District Registrar,
District Registrar Office,
Periyakulam, Theni District.
2. The Inspector General (Registration)
cum The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority,
Santhome High Road, Chennai-600 028.
M.JAICHANDREN,J.
AND
ARUNA JAGADEESAN,J.
csh
Writ Appeal No.436 of 2011
14-10-2014