Allowed

The Joint Sub Registrar 1, v. C.Maalathi

Madras HC30 Jan 2018WA/1164/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court set aside a Single Judge order directing the appellant to return a registered sale deed to the respondent pending Section 47-A stamp Act adjudication, as the matter was remanded/decided after the order. The writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Court order dated 17.08.2016 setting aside and directing return of the document is set aside. The writ petition is dismissed. Connected CMPs are closed.

The Joint Sub Registrar 1, Vs C.Maalathi — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 30.01.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. VELMURUGAN

¶7

Writ Appeal No.1164 of 2016 and CMP Nos.14955 and 14956 of 2016

¶8

The Joint Sub Registrar, 1, K-9/3, Coonur Road, Ooty 643 001 .... Appellant/Respondent vs C. Maalathi .... Respondent/Petitioner

¶9

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P.No.28662 of 2016 dated 17.08.2016.

¶10

W.P. No 28662/2016:

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent to return the registered sale deed Doc. No. 1086/2016 dated 29.07.2016.

¶12

The Order, directing the appellant to return the document to the respondent, after making an endorsement with regard to the pendency of the proceeding under Sec.47-A of the Indian Stamp Act 1899, is under challenge in this intracourt appeal.

¶13

Heard the learned Special Government Pleader on behalf of the appellant.

¶14

None appeared for the respondent.

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

The document presented by the respondent was registered by the appellant as per Document No.1086 of 2016. Since the document was not returned to the respondent, inspite of submitting a representation, a writ petition in W.P.No.28662 of 2016 was filed before the Writ Court.

¶17

Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant contended that the proceeding under Sec.47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is likely to be commenced shortly and as such, it is not possible to return the document. The learned Single Judge, by following the earlier decision reported in 2002(3)CTC 544 (B. Rajappa and another vs The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), O/o The Collectorate (V floor), Singaravelar Maaligai, Rajaji Salai,Madras and 2 others), allowed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge directed the appellant to release the registered sale deed within a period of two weeks, after making endorsement.

¶18

When this appeal came up for hearing on 25.01.2018, we directed the learned Special Government Pleader to take instructions as to whether the proceedings under Sec.47-A of the Indian Stamp Act is still pending.

¶19

When this appeal is taken up for hearing today, the learned Special Government Pleader, by producing a copy of the proceeding dated 09.06.2017, on the file of The Collector of Stamps, Udagamandalam, submitted that orders have already been passed by the competent authority.

¶20

The learned Single Judge directed the appellant to return the document, pending adjudication of the proceeding under Sec.47-A of the Indian Stamp Act.

¶21

Now that, the statutory authority has already passed an order under Sec.47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. It is for the respondent to work out her remedy in the manner known to law.

¶22

In case, the respondent is of the view that the order requires to be challenged before the appellate authority, it is always open to her to initiate such proceedings. The appellate authority has also the power to pass an interim order, during the currency of the appeal.

¶23

We are, therefore, of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside on account of the subsequent events.

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

In the result, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 17.08.2016 is set aside. The writ petition in W.P.No.28662 of 2016 is dismissed on account of the subsequent events.

¶26

The intracourt appeal is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected CMPs are closed.
s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
sr
1. The Joint Sub Registrar I
K-9/13, Connor Road
Ooty.
+1 CC to The Govt. Pleader sr 7432.
Writ Appeal No.1164/2016
BR(CO)
SP(21/02/2018)

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The Joint Sub Registrar 1, v. C.Maalathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Joint Sub Registrar 1, v. C.Maalathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E.Sekar Vs the Secretary

G. Mathew Vs the District Collector

N. Baskaran Vs the Managing Director

R. Deivasigamani Vs the Management of Tamil Nadu

M/s.Sri Vari Alloys India (P) Vs The Chairman and Managing

Lanco Infratech Ltd., Vs the Assistant Commissioner(Ct)