Disposed

V.Maheswaramnuiraj v. the Sub Registar

Madras HC2 Jan 2020CMA/220/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court closed the civil miscellaneous appeal. The parties agreed on a stamp duty amount of Rs. 22,00,000/-, directed the appellant to pay the sum within four weeks, and held no further orders were required, allowing the connected petition to close. Registration charges were excluded.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to pay stamp duty of Rs. 22,00,000/- within four weeks; appeal closed; no further orders passed.

V.Maheswaramnuiraj Vs the Sub Registar — Madras HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 02.01.2020

¶3

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶4

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.220 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.2691 of 2016

¶5

V.Maheswaramuniraj

¶6

... Appellant/Appellant

¶7

-vs-

¶8

1.The Sub-Registrar, Ayyampalayam, Dindigul District.

¶9

2.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Madurai.

¶10

3.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority-cumInspector General of Registration, Santhome High Court, Chennai-28. ... Respondents/Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 47-A(10) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 to set aside the order dated 02.06.2015 passed in Appeal No.Pa.Mu.No.23352/N4/2014 on the file of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority-cum-Inspector General of Registration, Chennai-28.

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.R.Asokan

¶13

For Respondents: Mr.T.M.Pappiah Spl. Govt. Pleader

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This Appeal has been filed to set aside the order dated 02.06.2015 passed in Appeal No.Pa.Mu.No.23352/N4/2014 by the 3^rd Respondent herein, by which, the 3^rd Respondent had fixed the value of the property covered under the sale deed dated 20.08.2008 registered as Doc.No.1666 of 2008 at Rs.15,50,000/per acre.

¶16

Learned counsel for the Appellant has submitted that though the order passed by the 3^rd respondent appears to be in favour of the Appellant herein, the fixation of amount of Rs.15,50,000/- per acre for coconut grove is on the higher side. Initially, the place was marked as a residential unit and the total amount was approximately Rs.50,00,000/- per acre. He has further submitted that in order to give quietus to the issue, after adjusting the amount already paid, the Appellant is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

willing to pay necessary stamp duty for Rs.20,00,000/-, which would be over and above the amount already paid.

¶18

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the

¶19

respondents has stated that the Appellant may be directed to pay stamp duty for Rs.25,00,000/- instead of Rs.20,00,000/-.

¶20

However, after elaborate arguments, the parties have agreed that stamp duty for a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- shall be paid by the Appellant, as they do not want to prolong the litigation forever.

¶21

In view of the same, no further orders are required to be passed in this case and the present Appeal is closed. The Appellant is directed to pay the stamp duty for Rs.22,00,000/within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, which will be over and above the amount already paid and no further sum would be claimed by the 3^rd Respondent, which will not include the registration charges. It is made clear that the amount paid, if any in pursuance of the interim order of this Court shall also be adjusted against the amount ordered to be paid now. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII)

¶24

//True copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

To:

¶28

1.The Sub-Registrar, Ayyampalayam, Dindigul District.

¶29

2.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Madurai.

¶30

3.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority-cumInspector General of Registration, Santhome High Court, Chennai-28.

¶31

+1cc to Mr.R.Asokan, Advocate SR.No.493

¶32

+1cc to Government Pleader, High Court, Madras SR.No.969

¶33

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.220 of 2016

¶34

GP(CO)

¶35

GMY(13/01/2020)

¶36

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

V.Maheswaramnuiraj v. the Sub Registar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Maheswaramnuiraj v. the Sub Registar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Employees State Vs P. Dandapani

K.Indira@Uma Mageshwari Vs R.Suresh

Sethukarasi@Bharathy Vs Muthurasu

R.Selvakumar Vs Dhivya Roopa

Tmt. Maru Kiruthal Mary Vs the Commissioner of Land

Shahitha Parvin Vs M.Prabhakaran