Disposed¶34

Kamalam v. The State of Tamil nadu

Madras HC15 Apr 2026WP/13221/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Refund of excess stamp duty and registration charges Rs.1,07,800/-; rectification deed Document No. 5855 of 2025; rectification of typographical mistakes in earlier settlement deed; representation dated 26.02.2026 not considered; direction to Sub Registrar, Anamalai (Coimbatore District) to pass final orders within eight weeks; no opinion on merits; writ petition disposed, no costs; Madras High Court; Abdul Quddhose, J.; WP No. 13221 of 2026.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the third respondent to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law on the petitioner's representation dated 26.02.2026 seeking refund of Rs.1,07,800/- within eight weeks, after due consideration of the supporting documents produced by the petitioner; no costs. ¶34

Kamalam Vs The State of Tamil nadu — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner was liable to pay stamp duty and registration charges of Rs.1,07,800/- on the rectification deed (Document No. 5855 of 2025) said to have been executed only to rectify typographical mistakes in an earlier settlement deed. +1 more

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The Court directed the third respondent (Sub Registrar, Anamalai) to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law on the petitioner's representation dated 26.02.2026 seeking refund of the alleged excess stamp duty and registration charges of Rs.1,07,800/- paid for registration of rectification deed No. 5855 of 2025, within eight weeks of receipt of a copy of the order, after giving due consideration to the supporting documents produced by the petitioner.

¶31

Key takeaways

No prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the petitioner's representation is considered on merits and in accordance with law within a time frame fixed by the Court.ratio¶29
The Court expressly did not express any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's representation; the disposal is confined to directing consideration of the representation.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Abdul Quddhose, J.) disposed of a writ petition by Kamalam seeking a direction to the Registration Department authorities to consider her representation dated 26.02.2026 for refund of excess stamp duty and registration charges of Rs.1,07,800/- collected on registration of a Rectification Deed (Document No. 5855 of 2025), which she contended was executed only to rectify typographical mistakes in an earlier settlement deed. The Court accepted that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents in considering the representation, and directed the third respondent (Sub Registrar, Anamalai) to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law on the representation within eight weeks of receipt of a copy of the order, after due consideration of the supporting documents produced by the petitioner, while expressly expressing no opinion on the merits. No costs.

¶1

WP No. 13221 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 15-04-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE WP No. 13221 of 2026

¶6

1. Kamalam

¶7

W/o Late Venue Gopalakrishna Swami, D/o Veluswamy Gounder, Door No 182 Main Road, Vadaikulam, Anamalai Taluk, Coimbatore District

¶8

Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

The State of Tamil nadu Represented by its, Secretary to Government, Registration Department, Secretariat, Fort St. Geroge, Chennai 600 009

¶11

2.The District Registrar District Registrar office, 5th Floor, Singapore Plaza, Crosscut Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore 641 012

¶12

3.The Sub Registrar Sub-Registrar office, Anamalai, Polcie station Road, Anamalai Taluk, Coimbatore District

¶13

Respondent(s)

¶14

WP No. 13221 of 2026

¶15

PRAYER

¶16

Directing the Respondents to consider the petitioners representation dated 26.02.2026 seeking refund of the excess stamp duty and registration charges of Rs 1,07,800/- collected at the time of registration of the Rectification Deed bearing Docuemnt No 5855/ 2025 on the file of the 3rd respondent

¶17

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

¶18

WP No. 13221 of 2026

¶19

WP	No. 13221 of 2026
For Petitioner(s):	Mr.E.V. Arunachalagiri For Mr.K.Vingeshwaran
For Respondent(s):	Mr.U.Baranidharan,SGP For Respondent
	ORDER

¶20

This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to refund the

¶21

excess stamp duty and registration charges of Rs.1,07,800/- based on the petitioner’s representation dated 26.02.2026.

¶22

According to the petitioner, she is not liable to pay the stamp duty for the rectification deed, registered as document No.5855 of 2025 on the file of the third respondent. According to the petitioner, in order to get the rectification deed released, the petitioner had to pay the excess stamp duty of Rs.1,07,800/-. According to the petitioner, the rectification deed was executed only to rectify the typographical mistakes committed in the earlier settlement deed, and therefore, there was no necessity for the petitioner to pay the stamp duty of a sum of Rs.1,07,800/- for the execution and registration of the rectification deed.

¶23

The petitioner had given a representation on 26.02.2026 to the respondents, requesting them to refund the sum of Rs. 1,07,800/-, which according to the petitioner was paid in excess towards the stamp duty and the registration charges for the execution and registration of the rectification deed

¶24

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

¶25

WP No. 13221 of 2026

¶26

bearing No. 5855 of 2025. Since the said representation has not been considered till date, this writ petition has been filed.

¶27

Mr. U. Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶28

No prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the petitioner’s

¶29

representation as stated supra is considered on merits and in accordance with law within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶30

This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s representation.

¶31

For the foregoing reasons, this Court directs the third respondent to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law on the petitioner’s representation dated 26.02.2026, seeking for refund of the alleged excess stamp duty and registration charges amounting to Rs.1,07,800/- said to have been paid by the petitioner inadvertently for the registration of the rectification deed bearing No.5855 of 2025 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving due consideration to the supporting documents produced by the petitioner.

¶32

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

¶33

WP No. 13221 of 2026

¶34