Madras High Court
The Chief Controlling Revenue ... vs M.Jayam on 1 August, 2023
W.A.No.1955 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.08.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
W.A.No.1955 of 2023
1. The chief Controlling Revenue Authority
and Inspector General of Registration
Santhome High Road
Chennai 600 038.
2. The District Registrar
Dharmapuri.
3. The Joint Sub Registrar – 1
Dharmapuri. .. Appellants
Vs.
M.Jayam .. Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the order dated 09.06.2022 in W.P.No.12107 of 2014.
For the Appellants : Mr.P.Muthukumar
State Government Pleader
assisted by Mr.Karthick Jegannath
Government Advocate
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1955 of 2023
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
Heard Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government Pleader
assisted by Mr.Karthick Jegannath, learned Government Advocate
appearing for the appellants.
2. The respondent herein had filed W.P.No.12107 of 2014 before
the learned Single Judge, thereby challenging the order passed by
the present appellants demanding stamp duty on the settlement
deed.
3. The case of the original writ petitioner is that the petitioner
adopted one Agnes Selina Mary, daughter of a close relative of the
petitioner under the deed of adoption dated 02.07.1990 and
registered the same on 05.07.1990, bearing Registration Document
No.8/BK.IV of 1990. Settlement deed was entered into on 01.06.2011
and the said document was registered as Document No.1577 of 2011
in the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar I, Dharmapuri. After
registration, demand notice dated 11.02.2013 was issued, demanding
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1955 of 2023
deficit stamp duty of Rs.2.58 lakhs on the ground that adoption in
Christianity is not recognized, as such, the person in whose favour
the settlement deed is executed is not a family member.
4. Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government Pleader submits
that under the Christian Law, there is no provision recognizing the
concept of adoption. In the absence of a provision authorizing a
Christian person to adopt, the alleged adopted child does not become
a family member and as the adopted child does not become a family
member, there cannot be a settlement deed. The settlement deed can
be only amongst the members of the family, as such, the deficit
stamp duty of Rs.2.58 lakhs was rightly demanded. It is submitted
that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act was
enacted in the year 2000 and thereafter only, Christians were entitled
to adopt. Any adoption prior to it is void ab inito.
5. It does not appear to be a matter of dispute that on
02.07.1990 adoption deed was executed and the same was registered
on 05.07.1990, thereby the petitioner adopting one Agnes Selina
Mary. It is also stated that the adoption ceremony was performed at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1955 of 2023
the Sacred Heart Church, Dharmapuri. For all these years, the said
Agnes Selina Mary is treated as an adopted daughter of the
petitioner. At the time of registration of the adoption deed, the Sub-
Registrar never raised any objections. The said adoption deed was
registered and upon being asked, learned State Government Pleader
could not find out any prohibition upon the Christian persons to
adopt.
6. Learned Single Judge has relied upon the Canon Law to
suggest that adoption is permissible. The Canon Law does not
prohibit adoption. Canons 110 and 111 of the Code of Canon Law,
commissioned by the Canon Law Society of America states that, “the
children who have been adopted according to the norm of civil law
are considered as being the children of the person or persons who
have adopted them.” In the absence of any prohibition, we do not find
that the learned Single Judge has committed any error while passing
the impugned order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1955 of 2023
7. The writ appeal, as such stands dismissed. There will be no
order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.16668 of 2023 is closed.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
01.08.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
drm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1955 of 2023
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.
(drm)
W.A.No.1955 of 2023
01.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
