Madras High Court
Joint Sub-Registrar-Ii vs Ms.Lissy Lakshmi on 5 August, 2022
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
