Disposed

S.Kumaravel v. The Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC7 Aug 2023WP/10275/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a mandamus directing the Sub Registrar to return an Original Exchange Deed pending due to deficit stamp duty. The High Court directed the authorities to decide the reference under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as expeditiously as possible.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to decide the reference under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 within 8 weeks.

S.Kumaravel Vs The Inspector General of Registration — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.10275 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 07.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.No.10275 of 2023

1.S.Kumaravel

2.S.Mahalingam

... Petitioners

Vs.

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 600 028.

¶12

2.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Pollachi, Coimbatore District. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2 nd respondent herein to return the Original Exchange Deed Document No.2823/2009 dated 21.05.2009 to the petitioner herein.

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

W.P.No.10275 of 2023

¶17

F or Petitioners : Mr.S.Prabhu For Respondents : Mr.D.Ravichander Special Government Pleader

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the 2nd respondent to return the Original Exchange Deed Document No.2823/2009 dated 21.05.2009 to the petitioner.

¶20

It is not in dispute that the documents registered in the year 2009 was kept pending on the ground of deficit stamp duty. The petitioners have not paid the deficit stamp duty and the matter was referred under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The petitioner earlier filed CMA and the original order passed was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the authorities for fresh consideration. However, the authorities have not passed final orders for the past about 5 years.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioners made a submission that long pendency of the proceedings are causing prejudice to the interest of the petitioners.

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

W.P.No.10275 of 2023

¶25

Considering the facts and circumstances, the 1^st respondent is

¶26

directed to decide the issues pertaining to the reference made under Section

¶27

47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶28

5. With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No

¶29

costs.

¶30

07.08.2023

¶31

Jeni Index : Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes

¶32

¶33

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 600 028.

¶34

2.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Pollachi, Coimbatore District.

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

Page 3 of 4

¶37

W.P.No.10275 of 2023

¶38

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶39

Jeni

¶40

W.P.No.10275 of 2023

¶41

07.08.2023

¶42

Page 4 of 4

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.Kumaravel v. The Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Kumaravel v. The Inspector General of Registration

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

Kolanjinathan Vs the District Collector

H.Mohamed Rabi Vs The Sub Registrar

K.Duraisamy Vs the District Registrar(Administration)

U.Jinadoss, Vs The Taluk Legal Services

A.Karivardhan Vs the Sub Registrar

R.Rajeshwari Vs the Sub Registrar