Madras High Court
The Inspector General Of Registration vs Gurugnanasambandar Mission on 14 November, 2025
Author: S. M. Subramaniam
Bench: S. M. Subramaniam, Mohammed Shaffiq
W.A.No.2017 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.11.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A.No. 2017 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No. 15135 of 2022
1.The Inspector General of Registration
and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai – 600 028.
2.The District Registrar,
Mayiladuthurai,
Nagapattinam District.
3.The Joint Sub Registrar No.I,
Mayiladuthurai,
Nagapattinam District. .. Appellants
vs
Gurugnanasambandar Mission
Charitable Trust,
Rep. By its Trustee Sri-la-Sri
Shanmuga Desika Gnanasambanda Paramacharya
Swamigal, Dharmapuram,
Mayiladuthurai Taluk,
Nagapattinam District. .. Respondent
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against order
dated 02.08.2021 made in W.P.No. 37661 of 2003.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 06:47:25 pm )
W.A.No.2017 of 2022
For Appellants : Mr.U.Baranidharan
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.B.Jawahar
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by S. M. SUBRAMANIAM.,J)
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling
Revenue Authority is the appellant, challenging the writ order dated
02.08.2021 in W.P.No. 37761 of 2003.
2. The deed of settlement dated 29.11.2002 relating to the
present case was executed by Sri-la-Sri Shanmuga Desika
Gnanasambanda Paramacharya Swamigal (Swamigal) in favour of
Gurugnanasambandar Mission. As per the recitals, the properties
settled by swamigal is in his individual name. The said Swamigal
made a settlement of properties to the trust Gurugnanasambandar
Mission under the document relating to the present case. Document
was presented for registration.
3. The registering authority, on scrutiny, found that the
trust mission is not falling under the Hindu Religious &Charitable
Endowments Act. Therefore, the stamp duty paid by the presentant
of the document was questioned. The registering authority found
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 06:47:25 pm )
that the settlement deed presented is not eligible for adoption of
nominal value of Rs.100 as provided under G.O.(Ms) No. 903 and
the document was kept pending in Doc No. 131 / 2002 as it is not
duly stamped. Consequently, the document was impounded under
Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Act) and forwarded to
the District Registrar, Mayuladuthurai. The District Registrar
affirmed the view taken by the registering authority vide his order
dated 24.01.2003 holding that the settlement deed is entitled for
50% reduction in stamp duty, as provided under G.O. dated 1224
Revenue dated 25.04.1964 and directed the mission to pay the
deficit stamp duty of Rs.54,21,199/- together with a penalty of
Rs.3801/-.
4. Revision petition filed by the Mission under Section
56(1) of the Act before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority was
dismissed in vide proceedings dated 06.11.2003. Challenging the
said order, writ petition came to be instituted.
5. Learned Special Government Pleader would submit that
the respondent's are not entitled to avail exemption from payment
of stamp duty under G.O(Ms) No. 903 dated 04.09.1986. The said
position was confirmed by the registering authority, appellate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 06:47:25 pm )
authority and the revisional authority. The writ court though
dismissed the writ petition, issued a direction to return the
document presented for registration. Once the document is
impounded under Section 33 of the Act, it cannot be returned
without following the procedures contemplated under the Act since
deficit stamp duty is to be recovered under the Act. Thus the
direction issued by the writ court, ever after dismissal of writ
petition, is running counter to the scheme contemplated under the
Act and the Registration Act.
6. It is further contended by the learned Special
Government Pleader that the said document presented after
registration has been referred under Section 47A of the Act.
Therefore, the respondent, has to participate in the process of
enquiry to be conducted by the District Collector under Section 47A
of the Act and thereafter prefer an appeal under Section 47A(5) of
the Act, if any order has been passed, and aggrieved.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr.Jawahar opposed
by stating that both the executor of the settlement deed and the
beneficiary are falling under the HR&CE Act. When both the trust
have been governed under the provisions of the HR&CE Act, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 06:47:25 pm )
benefit of the stamp duty is to be extended in view of G.O.(Ms).No.
903 dated 04.09.1986. The authorities have erroneously proceeded
on the basis that the executor is not a trust administered by HR&CE
Act, which is factually incorrect. That apart, the presentant of the
document is entitled to get back document, if it is not registered. In
the present case, the registration has been refused. Therefore, the
authorities competent are bound to return the document presented
and thus the direction issued by the writ court is in consonance with
the provisions of the Registration Act.
8. The rival submissions made between the parties have
been considered by this Court.
9. It is not in dispute that the settlement deed has been
presented for registration. Authorities found that the executor /
Swamigal executed the settlement deed in his personal capacity.
Therefore, he is not entitled to avail the stamp duty exemption
under G.O.(Ms) No. 903 dated 04.09.1986. The appellate authority
and the revisional authority confirmed the said decision taken by
the registering authority. Thereafter, the presentant of the
document made a request to return the document, which was
refused and, thus writ petition came to be instituted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 06:47:25 pm )
10. The respondent has to participate in the process of
enquiry initiated under Section 47A of the Act to determine the
stamp duty to be paid. If at all any final order has been passed by
the District Collector under Section 47A, thereafter, the respondent,
if aggrieved, has to prefer an appeal under Section 47A(5) of the
Act. That apart, the subject document has been registered as
Document No. 1797/2003. Therefore, the respondent has to adopt
the course already initiated under Section 47A of the Act. Before
registration, the document was impounded by the registering
authority under Section 33 of the Act. Even at that stage, if the
document is to be returned, the procedures as contemplated under
the Act is to be scrupulously followed. The said legal position has
been settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gita
Power and Infrastructure Private Limited v The Inspector
General of Registration cum the Chief Controlloing Revenue
Authority and others [W.A.No. 1609 of 2024 dated 07.10.2025].
Therefore, the document presented for registration, if impounded,
cannot be returned back to the presentant without following the
procedures as contemplated.
11. In the present case, the document was already
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 06:47:25 pm )
registered and referred under Section 47A of the Act. That being so,
the respondents have to participate in the process of enquiry to be
conducted by the District Collector (Stamps) under Section 47A of
the Act. Even during pending enquiry under Section 47A of the Act,
the presentant of the document cannot seek return of document
and the said legal position also has been settled by this Court in the
case of Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) v M.Alfred and others
reported in 2017 2 CWC 896. The relevant paragraphs read thus:-
“27. The learned counsel appearing for the
Respondents in Writ Appeals and the Petitioners
in writ petitions would submit that in the
absence of provision to withhold the documents
they are to be returned. The Registering
Authority cannot withhold the document. The
same applies to the Collector as well. Section
47-A(4) of the Indian Stamp Act provides for a
charge. Therefore, there is no need for
withholding the document Reference is with
respect to the dispute and not the instrument.
Thus, the Writ Petitions will have to be allowed
and the Writ Appeals will have to be dismissed.
28.As discussed above, there is no question of
return of the instrument by the Registering
Authority, if a reference is made along with the
instrument. In the absence of any provisions
enabling the return of the instruments, the
same cannot be given back. The provision for
creating charge cannot be construed for an
automatic release of the document. Even if we
apply the principle of purpose and reasonable
interpretation, the instrument cannot be
released until and unless the duty determined
is set aside or found to be wrong. In the light of
discussions made above, we are of the view
that the contentions raised by the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 06:47:25 pm )
Counsel for the Writ Petitioners cannot be
accepted.”
12. In either of the circumstances as stated above, the
document presented for registration cannot be returned back by the
registering authorities without following the procedures as
contemplated under the Act. Since the document presented in the
present case has already been registered, the respondent has to
place his defence before the District Collector (Stamps) under
Section 47A of the Act and thereafter, if aggrieved, approach the
appellate authority under Section 47A(5) of the Act.
13. The directions issued by the Writ Court to the
Registering Authority to return the documents presented for
registration are in violation of the procedures contemplated under
the Act for return of document. Documents presented for
registration shall be returned to the presentant only by following the
procedures as contemplated under the Act and Rules scrupulously.
Thus, the directions issued by the writ court to return back the
documents presented for registration to the respondent is set aside
and the decision to dismiss the writ petition stands confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 06:47:25 pm )
14. The writ appeal stands disposed of with the above
directions. It is made clear that the respondent is at liberty to
approach the competent authorities for all further actions, in the
manner known to law. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
[S.M.S, J.] [M.S.Q, J.]
14.11.2025
Index:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
ssm
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration
and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai – 600 028.
2.The District Registrar,
Mayiladuthurai,
Nagapattinam District.
3.The Joint Sub Registrar No.I,
Mayiladuthurai,
Nagapattinam District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 06:47:25 pm )
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
ssm
14.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 06:47:25 pm )
