Madras High Court
The Inspector General Of ... vs Accel Limited on 9 August, 2023
W.A.No.20 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 09.08.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
W.A.No.20 of 2020
and CMP No.255 of 2020
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai-600 004.
2. The Sub Registrar,
Office of the Sub Registrar,
Kodambakkam,
Chennai-600 024. .... Appellants
Vs
Accel Limited,
Third Floor,
No.75, Nelson Manickam Road,
Chennai-600 029. .... Respondent
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order passed
in W.P.No.7700 of 2008 dated 28.06.2011.
For Appellants : Mr.U.M.Ravichandran
Special Government Pleader
For respondent : Mr.Krisha Srinivas
Senior Counsel for
M/s Ramasubramanian Associates
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.20 of 2020
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J.,)
Aggrieved by the order passed in W.P.No.7700 of 2008, the respondents in
the writ petition have filed the present appeal.
2. The learned Special Government Pleader submits before this Court that
the writ court, relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Park View Enterprises vs State Government of Tamil Nadu reported
in (1991 71 CompCas 723 Mad), ordered the appellants to return the unregistered
sale deed to the respondent/writ petitioner. The relevant portion of the judgment of
the Division Bench reads as follows:
“ Yet another plea put forth by petitioners is
that, the Registering Authorities before whom
conveyance of undivided share in land is
produced for registration cannot compel
production of agreements which are
unconnected with an undivided share sold in
the land, which alone is chargeable to duty
under Art.23, and that by summoning
construction agreements they cannot impose
the stamp duty under Art.5(i) on such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.20 of 2020
agreements and insist upon registering them.
Undoubtedly, it is entirely left to the parties,
either to register or not to register the
instrument. If they do not choose to register
the document, the consequences are spelt out
in Sec.49 of the Registration Act. Even
thereunder, the proviso is to the effect that an
unregistered document affecting immovable
property could be received as evidence of a
contract in a suit for specific performance, or
as evidence of part-performance for the
purpose of Sec.53A of the Transfer of Property
Act, or as evidence of any collateral
transaction not required to be effected by
registered instruments. Therefore, failure to
register a document which is compulsorily
registrable under Sec.17(1) of the Registration
Act, disables the effectiveness of the document
only to the extent provided in that section and
not otherwise. It suffers certain handicaps as
in Sec.35 of the Act. Therefore, on the
Registering Authority under R.3(3) getting at
an agreement which would come under
Art.5(i) or even the Collector on coming
across such an agreement when he assesses
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.20 of 2020
the market value under S.47A(2) of a share of
land sold under a sale deed; cannot compel
the parties to register such agreements. Hence
an agreement covered by Article 5(i) and
which is not registered and proper s tamp duty
not paid thereon, would suffer the disability as
known to law. No provision is made either in
the Stamp Act or in the Registration Act, to
compel parties to an instrument to register it.”
3. Accordingly, the appellants are directed to return the unregistered sale
deed to the respondent/writ petitioner without insisting for stamp duty as it is not
applicable to the case on hand.
4. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the respondent/writ
petitioner submitted that the unregistered sale deed has been returned to the
respondent/writ petitioner.
5. In the light of the above submission by the learned counsel for the
respondent/writ petitioner, nothing survives for adjudication and the writ appeal is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.20 of 2020
dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
(D.K.K.J.,) (P.B.B.J.,)
09.08.2023
Index : Yes
Website : Yes
sr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.20 of 2020
D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J
AND
P.B.BALAJI.J
sr
W.A.No.20 of 2020
09.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
