Dismissed

The District Registrar v. G. Raju, S/O.Gopi

Kerala HC30 Jul 2013WA/1147/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the writ appeal against a Single Judge's order. The appeal challenged non-registration of a document due to stamp duty adjudication delay by authorities holding the petitioner to blame. The Court held the delay was the authority's fault and affirmed the lower court's direction for an enquiry and cost imposition.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; directions under the impugned order remain effective.

The District Registrar Vs G. Raju, S/O.Gopi — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2013/8TH SRAVANA, 1935

¶6

WA.No. 1147 of 2013 ()

¶7

WP(C) 18045/2012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 12-03-2013

¶8

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION:

¶9

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA SOUTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682011.

¶10

THE SUB REGISTRAR REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA SOUTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682011.

¶11

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA THIRUANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.I.DAVIS

¶13

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION:

¶14

G. RAJU

¶15

S/O. GOPI, CHITTETH (H), KATTIKUNNUKARA VAIKOM, PIN 686307.

¶16

BY SRI.R.MAYA KRISHNAN

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-072013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J. & K.VINOD CHANDRAN,J.

¶19

-----------------------------------W.A.No.1147 OF 2013

¶20

Dated this the 30^th day of July, 2013

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Manjula Chellur,C.J.

¶23

The entire dispute revolves around the issue of non registration of a document as per Section 23 of the Registration Act, as the document has to be registered within four months from the date of execution.

¶24

The admitted facts are, the document sought to be registered is dated 9/3/2012. It had to be registered on or before 9/7/2012. It is not in dispute that there was dispute with regard to the stamp duty payable on the said document. Therefore, the matter was brought before the first appellant District Registrar for adjudication. Unfortunately, for no fault of the respondent/writ petitioner

¶25

the matter was kept pending with the first appellant herein till 23/6/2012. i.e for about 103 days. It was

¶26

¶27

WA.1147/13

¶28

categorical statement of the respondent/writ petitioner and also as indicated in the affidavit of the lawyer attending to the registration of the document of the respondent/writ petitioner before the second appellant Sub Registrar that for no fault of the respondent/writ petitioner, said document was not even received, leave alone raising any objection. Therefore, after approaching several authorities, ultimately the respondent/writ petitioner had approached the learned Single Judge by filing W.P.(C) No.18045 of 2012 seeking a direction against appellants/respondent authorities.

¶29

The learned Single Judge after referring to all the steps taken by the respondent/writ petitioner opined that there was no reason why the statement of the advocate concerned should be disbelieved; as discernible from the contents of the affidavit filed by the lawyer. First appellant took almost 103 days to adjudicate the matter and ultimately he differed from the opinion of the second appellant Sub Registrar and accepted the stamp duty

¶30

¶31

WA.1147/13

¶32

paid by the party. This being the hurdle, once adjudicated, there was no other obstacle or impediment for getting the document registered.

¶33

Therefore, we are of the opinion that the respondent/writ petitioner having spent Rs.11 Lakhs to get the transfer of the money decree and then having got the document executed on 9/3/2012 would not venture to delay the matter at his instance. After realizing the hurdles, he must have been careful to present the document within the time for registration. The affidavit of the lawyer and the averments in the writ petition would go to show, there was no delay so far as the writ petitioner is concerned, in getting the document registered as it was submitted as early as on 2/7/2012 after receiving the same on 23/6/2012. The entire fault lies with the authority who did not readily accept the stand of the respondent/writ petitioner as it was the second appellant who raised the objection of deficit of stamp duty and first appellant took time in adjudicating the same

¶34

¶35

WA.1147/13

¶36

holding the same against the second appellant. Though appellants/respondents sought to justify their stand by attributing delay on the respondent/writ petitioner; to subject the document with penalty as provided under Section 25 of the Act, the learned Judge was justified in saying, such an attitude of the appellants/respondents has to be deprecated.

¶37

According to the facts placed on record Ext.P1 being a valid document and the transfer of money decree being subject matter of an immovable property attached before judgment, deserves to be registered mandatorily. Therefore, none of the deficits could be attributed to the respondent/writ petitioner as the document was presented before the jurisdictional Sub Registrar Office, Maradu instead of Sub Registrar Office, Ernakulam. Except raising irrelevant objections for getting the document registered, respondent/writ petitioner was made to run from pillar to post. None of the procedure

¶38

¶39

WA.1147/13

¶40

adopted by the appellant authorities have any justification. Having regard to the attitude and conduct of the appellants/respondents, the learned Judge opined that third respondent Inspector General of Registration (in the writ petition) has to conduct an enquiry as to the course and proceedings pursued by appellants 1 and 2 for the delay on the part of appellants 1 and 2 and then there is also justification in imposing cost of Rs.5,000/-. We do not find any good ground to differ from the said opinion of the learned Single Judge.

¶41

Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed.

¶42

MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE.

¶43

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶44

uj.

The District Registrar v. G. Raju, S/O.Gopi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The District Registrar v. G. Raju, S/O.Gopi

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

M.R.Raghava Varier Vs State of Kerala

N.R.Suthan Vs Deputy Inspector General

Gireesh Vs Smt.Bindu

Bhanumathi Varassiar Vs Sub Inspector

A.Kadeeja Beevi Vs the State of Kerala

K.V. Kumaran Vs Smt. Susheela Nair