Allowed

State of Kerala v. B.Venkitanarayanan

Kerala HC4 Sept 2012RP/103/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Review Petition filed by government functionaries challenging a direction to issue a certified copy of an unregistered, misplaced document was allowed. The Court permitted registration based on the filing sheet as a true copy and recalled the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The Review Petition was allowed; the judgment in O.P. No. 7418/2003 dated 18.7.2008 was recalled to permit registration using the filing sheet as a true copy.

State of Kerala Vs B.Venkitanarayanan — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/13TH BHADRA 1934

¶5

RP.No. 103 of 2009 (G)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP.7418/2003 DATED 18-07-2008

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS :

¶8

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES (E) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

3. DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

4. SUB REGISTRAR, FORT SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SANJEETHA

¶13

RESPONDENT / PETITIONER :

¶14

B. VENKITANARAYANAN, T.C. NO. 26/447, KAIPALLIVILAKATHU VEEDU, VANROSE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.D.SAJEEV

¶16

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶19

--------------------------------------------------

¶20

Review Petition No.103 Of 2009 in

¶21

O.P.No.7418 of 2003

¶22

--------------------------------------------------

¶23

DATED THIS THE 4^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This Review Petition is filed by the respondents in the Original Petition aggrieved by the direction in the judgment to issue a certified copy of the document with an endorsement that the original is misplaced and is not traceable.

¶26

In the Review Petition, it is pointed out that the

¶27

document was not duly stamped and the Sub Registrar had impounded the document under Section 33 of the Kerala Stamp Act and transmitted the same to the District Registrar as provided under Section 37(2) of the Kerala Stamp Act. This happened in the year 1979.

¶28

Even though notice was issued to the executant/presentant, namely Shri Ramachandra Reddiar as well as to the petitioner in the Original Petition, they did not respond

¶29

for a long time and the District Registrar therefore passed a final order in the year 1981 and Rs.2,606/- was fixed as deficit stamp

¶30

R.P.No.103/09 -2-

¶31

duty. For a considerable period, there was no response and in the year 1994, the respondent/petitioner has deposited the deficit stamp duty in the Sub Registrar's Office, Thiruvananthapuram and requested to return the original document. It is mentioned in paragraph No.5 of the memorandum of Review Petition that by the lapse of 14 years, the said document, which was presented in the year 1979 was irrecoverably lost at the Office of the District Registrar and the registration of the document could not therefore be made. It is also mentioned that the Original Petition was filed after a period of 24 years.

¶32

Heard the learned Government Pleader for the review petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. It is clear that the certified copy cannot be issued as the original was not registered.

¶33

This is a case where the document has not been registered so far. In ground No.C of the Review Petition, the review petitioners have pointed out that unless this Court permits registration of the document without the original but using the filing sheet available in the Office of the Sub Registrar, as a true

¶34

R.P.No.103/09 -3-

¶35

copy referred to in Rule 4 of the Registration (Filing of True Copy) Rules, 1967 and for the purpose of Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 52 of the Registration Act, there is legal difficulty in complying with the judgment. It is also stated that the review petitioners are ready and willing to register the documents without the originals and based on the filing sheet, if this Court directs so. In that view of the matter, the Review Petition is allowed and the judgment in O.P.No.7418/2003 dated 18.7.2008 is recalled.

¶36

Sd/-( T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR , JUDGE)

¶37

dsn

State of Kerala v. B.Venkitanarayanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. B.Venkitanarayanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.P.Sajithadevi Vs Shri.Muhammed Sagir

Dr.N.S.Ajayaghosh Vs v.P.Joy

Penta Circle Informatics Pvt. Ltd. Vs a.Alexander

Jain Johnson Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport

B.Venkitanarayanan Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rahiman P. Vs Kannur University