G. Jagan Mohan vs The State Of Telangana And 2Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 6665 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6665 Tel
Judgement Date : 9 December, 2022

Telangana High Court

G. Jagan Mohan vs The State Of Telangana And 2Others on 9 December, 2022

Bench: Mummineni Sudheer Kumar

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
                WRIT PETITION No.43737 of 2022

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration

appearing for the respondents.

2. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition

is that the unregistered sale deed executed by one Pingala

Subba Rao S/o P.V.Raghava Rao in favour of the petitioner

herein is presented before respondent No.3 herein requesting for

impounding/validating the same by collecting deficit stamp

duty. But, the same was not entertained by respondent No.3 by

passing an impugned order bearing letter No.8730/E1-

Imp/2021, dated 01.02.2022. The said order reads as under:

"With reference to the application submitted for adjudication of unregistered (deficitly stamped) Sale Deed executed by Pingala Subba Rao on 16.06.1988, it is informed that the instrument is date of back of 34 years, the genuinenty of stamp paper could not be verified with records as the period of preservation stamp vendor records, over and destroyed. The claim appears to be time barred without proof of title over the property. Further on verification of indexes of the department Sri Pingal Subba Rao S/o P.V.Raghava Rao was already sold the property (referred in unregistered Sale Deed) through Sale Deed registered as No's.1566/1992 dated 23.06.1992, 1597/1992 dated 25.06.1992, 1628/1992, dated 29.06.1992, and 1675/1992 dated 04.07.1992 at S.R.O Chikkapally.

Therefore, in view of the above reasons the application for adjudication of the unregistered Sale Deed dated 16.06.1988, which was executed prior to the registered Sale Deed's dated 23.06.1992, 25.06.1992, 29.06.1992 and 04.07.1992, cannot be entertained.

Therefore, the application is rejected."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the

notice of this Court the order passed by a learned single judge of

this court in W.P.No.7729 of 2016 wherein, this Court by

following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and others v.

P.Laxmi Devi1 held that any document, which is insufficiently

stamped once produced before the District Registrar, he has no

authority to reopen the document without impounding the said

document. By holding as such, this Court allowed the said writ

petition. The order passed by this Court in the said writ petition

reads as under:

"Petitioner has questioned a Memo No.G1/976/2016 dt.08.02.2016 issued by 3rd respondent to impound unregistered original sale deed, dt. 05.06.1970, presented by the petitioner for the said purpose for collection of deficit stamp duty and penalty under Section 38 (2) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the basis for the impugned memo issued by 3rd respondent is that executants of the document are not alive and that the litigation is pending in respect of the subject property. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Government of Andhra

(2008) 4 SCC 720

Pradesh and others v. P.Laxmi Devi, wherein it was held that the Sub Registrar, being holder of public office, cannot return a document which is insufficiently stamped once he finds that it is not properly stamped and he must impound it.

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents is not able to point out any provision in the said Act enabling the 3rd respondent to refuse to impound insufficiently stamped documents produced by a party.

Having regard to the law declared by the Supreme Court in the above decision, I am of the opinion that it is the statutory duty of 3rd respondent to impound documents which are insufficiently stamped and produced before him by a party, after collecting a deficit stamp duty and penalty under the provisions of the said Act, and he cannot refuse to do so by giving frivolous reasons like litigation is pending or that executants are not alive. The Writ Petition is allowed, the memo, dated 08.02.2016 is set aside and 3rd respondent is directed to impound the said document dt.05.06.1970 produced by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order and collect deficit stamp duty and penalty thereon under the provisions of the Act. The 3rd respondent shall also pay costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the petitioner."

4. In view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court

and the order of this Court in W.P.No.7729 of 2016, this Court

is of the considered view that the 3rd respondent while

considering the validation/impounding of a document has no

right or authority to look into the title of the parties to the

document over the subject property or otherwise. Mere

validation or impounding of a document without collecting

deficit stamp duty will not change the nature of the document

nor affect the title of any of the parties therein.

5. In view of law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court as well as this Court, this Court does not find it necessary

to call for a counter from the respondents in the matter and is