Kerala High Court
Ebrahimkutty vs The District Registrar (General) on 3 October, 2024
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
W.P.(C).No.38672/2022
1
2024:KER:73200
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 11TH ASWINA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 38672 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:
1 EBRAHIMKUTTY, AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. MOIDEEN K.V., RAJ MAHAL, NEAR BPL TOWER,
KANNOTHUMCHAL, PO THANA, KANNUR - 670012.
2 MUHAMMED SHAFEEQ, MADATHIL KOVVAL, AGED 47
YEARS, S/O. SRI. ABOOBACKER, THEKKEKURIKKALE
VALAPPIL, PALLACHALIL, "SUFALI", NEAR
PAMBURUTHI ROAD, PO NAVATH, KANNUR - 670601.
BY ADVS. T.P.SAJID
K.P.MOHAMED SHAFI, SHIFA LATHEEF
MUHAMMED HAROON A.N.
RESPONDENTS:
THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL)
KANNUR AT THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT-670101.
*ADDL.R2: THE SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRAR
OFFICE, KANNUR, PIN:670 002
*IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R2 AS PER
JUDGMENT DATED 3.10.2024
SRI.B.S.Syamanthak, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.38672/2022
2
2024:KER:73200
JUDGMENT
The 1st petitioner sold an extent of 4 Ares 86 Sq.mt.
of property in Block No.171 of Pallikkunnu Village in Kannur
Taluk in Kannur District to the 2 nd petitioner as per Ext.P1
sale deed. Subsequently, it was noticed that some
typographical error occurred in the side measurement showed
in the plan attached along with Ext.P1 document. Therefore,
the 1st petitioner prepared Ext.P6 rectification deed in favour
of the 2nd petitioner and presented it for registration before
the Sub Registrar, Kannur. The respondent/District Registrar
passed Ext.P4 order and held that Ext.P6 should be reckoned
as sale deed and the stamp duty as applicable for a sale deed
(deed of conveyance) should be levied on the deed. It is
challenging Ext.P4, the petitioners have approached this
Court.
2. The Sub Registrar, Kannur is not made as a
party in this writ petition. Hence, the Sub Registrar, Sub
Registrar Office, Kannur-670 002 is suo motu impleaded as
additional 2nd respondent in this writ petition.
3. I have heard Sri.T.P. Sajid, the learned
2024:KER:73200
counsel for the petitioners and Sri. B.S. Syamanthak, the
learned Government Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that by executing Ext.P6, the 1st petitioner only
wanted to correct the mistake that crept in the side
measurement of the property showed in the plan attached
along with Ext.P1 and it does not create or extinguish any
right other than what was conveyed in Ext.P1 and hence the
stand taken by the respondent that Ext.P6 should be treated
as sale deed for the purpose of payment of stamp duty
cannot be justified.
5. On the other hand, the learned Government
Pleader Sri. Syamanthak submitted that it is not a case of
mere correction of side measurement in the plan attached to
the document, but even the identity is changed and new right
is created which attracts stamp duty as that of a conveyance
deed under Serial No.21 in the Schedule to the Stamp Act.
6. This Court recently in Dr. Sasikumar v.
State of Kerala (2024 (4) KLT 864) held that when any
mistake in a deed is sought to be corrected by executing a
rectification deed, stamp duty is not payable inasmuch as no
stamp duty has been prescribed for a deed of rectification
2024:KER:73200
under the Stamp Act and the Schedule appended therein. It
was further held that the registration fee leviable on a
rectification deed is the same registration fee leviable on the
original document subject to a maximum of ₹525/-. It was
also held that the wrong description of the boundaries, survey
number, or any other description of the property which does
not create, transfer or record any fresh right can be rectified
through a rectification deed.
7. I went through Exts. P1 and P6. As per
Ext.P1, an extent of 4 Ares 86 Sq.mt of property has been
assigned by the 1st petitioner in favour of the 2nd petitioner.
The property has been described in the schedule. In the
description of property in the schedule of Exts.P1 and P6, the
survey number, boundaries and the extent are one and the
same. It is true that the side measurement shown in the
plan attached in both documents are different. A comparison
of Exts. P1 and P6 would show that the property covered by
both documents is same. It appears that by some
typographical error, the side measurement in the plan
attached to Ext.P1 has been mistakenly shown, which has
been corrected as per the rectification deed.
8. Inasmuch as the subject matter of Exts.P1
2024:KER:73200
and P6 is one and the same and Ext.P6 does not create or
extinguish any right other than what was conveyed by Ext.P1,
it has to be treated only as a rectification deed for all
purposes including levy of stamp duty and registration fee.
Hence, the respondent cannot demand that the petitioners
shall pay stamp duty on Ext.P6, reckoning it as a
conveyance/sale deed. Ext.P4 is accordingly set aside. The
additional 2nd respondent is directed to register Ext.P6
without insisting for stamp duty.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
kp
2024:KER:73200
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38672/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING NO.
2074/1/2021 DATED 1/9/2021 OF KANNUR
SRO EXECUTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER IN
FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION DEED
DATED 21/6/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
21/6/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
DRGKNR/2714/2022/GI, THALASSERY DATED
4/11/2022
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
17/11/2022 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN W.P.(C). NO. 28436 OF 2022
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION DEED
DATED 21/9/2022
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R(a) True copy of the Boundary Measurements
