Sheena Sebastian vs The State Of Kerala on 1 October, 2018
This Court in the judgment
in State of Kerala v. Jino Joseph, reported in
2012 (2) KLT 265 has held in para 19 thereof as
follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.30 seconds)Documents citing
The State Of Kerala vs Jino Joseph
The State Of Kerala vs Shajan Ipe on 3 June, 2014
In view of the decisions referred above and recently
reiterated in State of Kerala and Others Vs. Jino Joseph
(2012 (2) KHC 25), I find that the issues involved in all these
petitions are covered by the above decisions. Consequently, the
arguments advanced by the Government are rejected and the
OP(C).125/10 & con. cases :10:
M/S. Pooma Convention Centre Private ... vs The District Registrar (General) on 14 September, 2012
Similarly, it is pointed out that,
the attempt of the first respondent is to refix the 'market value',
which course is not permissible in view of the position made clear
by this Court as per the decision rendered in State of Kerala Vs.
Jino Joseph [2012 (2) KLT 265].
Sherborne Builders And Properties ... vs State Of Kerala on 6 December, 2018
3. After hearing both sides and taking note
of the factual aspects in this case, this Court is
of the considered view that the matter in issue is
covered in favour of the petitioner on the basis of
dictum laid down by this Court in various cases as
in the judgment dated 1.10.2018 in
W.P.(C)No.31917/2018, and the decisions of this
Court in State of Kerala v. Jino Joseph
reported in 2012 (2) KLT 265, The District
W.P.(C)No.39718/2018 3
Registrar v. Lake Paradise reported in 2001
(3) KLT 521 etc. Accordingly, it is ordered that
the directions and orders issued by this Court in
the judgment dated 1.10.2018 in
W.P.(C)No.31917/2018 will regulate this case as
well. Accordingly, it is ordered that the impugned
Exts.P7 and P8 orders are set aside and the matters
in relation to Exts.P3 and P4 notices will stand
remitted to the 2nd respondent District Registrar
for consideration afresh. The 2nd respondent will
meticulously follow the procedure in Rule 4 of the
Kerala Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of
Instruments), Rules 1968 and should pass and
communicate a formal provisional order giving the
material basis of his conclusion in Exts.P3 and P4
notices as to how he has arrived at the alleged
higher values of the properties concerned. This
may be done within six weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereafter,
the petitioner may send a reply thereto within
three weeks on receipt of such provisional order
W.P.(C)No.39718/2018 4
under Rule 4 along with supporting document.
Thereafter the 2nd respondent District Registrar
will grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard
to the petitioner either in person or through
authorized representative/counsel, if any and then
should advert to the contention of the petitioner
and should pass fresh orders in the above said
matters. The entire process in this regard may be
duly completed by the 2nd respondent District
Registrar, without much delay preferably within a
period of 3 to 4 months from the date of production
of a certified copy of this judgment. For the sake
of clarity, it is ordered that the Registry will
place a copy of the judgment dated 1.10.2018
rendered by this Court in W.P.(C)No. 31917/2018 as
appendix to this judgment.
Maria Antony S vs The Sub Registrar on 16 November, 2020
8. However, this would be without prejudice to the powers of
the competent registering officers concerned to invoke the
provisions in Section 45B, in case the objective materials to
establish that the actual sale consideration is more than the
one shown in the deed and that the one shown in the deed
does not truly reflect the correct sale consideration etc.
However invocation of this provision will be subject to the
strict adherence to the due procedure in the light of the legal
principle laid down by this Court in Lake Paradise case
supra [2001(3) KLT 521] and Jino Joseph's case supra
[2002(2) KLT 265] and also subject to adherence to Rule 4 of
WP(C).No.21758 OF 2020 7
the the KeralaStamp (Prevention and Undervaluation of
Instruments) Rules 1968 whereby in such case the competent
registering officer concerned has to pass a provisional formal
order giving the basis of his factual conclusions whether
tentative or final as to how he has come to the conclusion
that the actual sale consideration is much higher than the sale
consideration shown in the deed etc and copy of such
provisional order passed under Rule 4 should also be given to
the affected party concerned while proposed proceedings
under section 45B is initiated etc.
Sreekumar V vs District Collector on 25 August, 2020
On being served with a notice under Rule 4 of the Kerala Stamp
(Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, on the premise
that the value of the property has not been truly set forth in Ext.P1 sale
deed, the petitioner has rushed to this court. He submits that he has
submitted Ext.P3 representation before the 2nd respondent and his prayer in
this writ petition is to direct the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 in the
light of the law declared by this Court in State of Kerala and others Vs.
Jino Joseph [2012 (2) KHC 25].
Sreekumar.V vs District Collector on 5 August, 2021
ii) to issue a Writ of certiorari or order or
direction quashing Ext.P6 dated
04/11/2020 issued by the 2 respondent
nd
as it is in excess of jurisdiction and
violative of judgment of this Hon'ble
Court in State of Kerala & Ors. V. Jino
Joseph, 2012(2)KHC25.
The State Of Kerala vs Sunny on 1 December, 2025
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.
1