பத்திரப்பதிவு பிழை திருத்தத்திற்கு கட்டணம் செலுத்த தேவையில்லை!
நாம் செய்கின்ற பத்திரப்பதிவுகளில் நம்மையும் அறியாமல் ஏற்படுகின்ற பிழைகளால், அல்லது ஏற்கனவே நமது முன்னோர்களால் பதிவு செய்யப்பட்ட பத்திரங்களில் உள்ள பிழைகளால் சம்பந்தப்பட்ட பத்திரத்தில் உள்ள சொத்தை அடமானம் வைக்க முடியாமல், விற்க முடியாமல் நாம் பல கஷ்டங்களை அனுபவித்திருக்கிறோம். அதனை திருத்தம் செய்யலாம் என்று பத்திரப்பதிவு அலுவலகத்திற்கு சென்றால் அவர்கள் அதற்கு தனியாக கட்டணம் வசூலிக்கிறார்கள்.
கட்டணம் செலுத்த வேண்டியதில்லை.
திருத்தங்கள் செய்யப்படுகின்ற பத்திரங்களால், அந்த பத்திரத்தில் உள்ள அளவு மற்றும் அதன் சொத்து மதிப்பை மாற்றாது என்றும், திருத்தங்கள் செய்வதற்கு முத்திரை வரி விதிப்பது என்பது சட்டவிரோதமானது என்றும் அதன் அடிப்படையில் பெறப்பட்ட ரூ.16,920ஐ, உத்தரவு கிடைத்த ஆறு வார காலத்திற்குள் மனுதாரரிடம் திருப்பி அளிக்க வேண்டும் என்றும் சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றம் சென்னை பதிவுத்துறைத்தலைவர் அவர்களுக்கும், சென்னை நீலாங்கரை சார்பதிவாளர் அவர்களுக்கும் எதிராக அனிருத்ர ரகுவீர் என்பவர் தொடர்ந்த வழக்கில் ( W.P. No.8585 of 2016 Annirrutha Raghuveer vs The Inspector General Of ... on 15 March, 2019) உத்தரவிட்டுள்ளது. அதன் சாராம்சத்தை கீழே காணலாம்.
Madras High Court
Annirrutha Raghuveer vs The Inspector General Of ... on 15 March, 2019
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 15.03.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA W.P. No.8585 of 2016 Annirrutha Raghuveer .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 600 028. 2.The Sub Registrar, O/o. Sub Registrar, Neelangarai, Chennai. .. Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petitions filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to refund the Stamp Duty of Rs.16,920/- and Registration Fee of Rs.2,570/- collected from the petitioner for registering the Rectification Deed dated 19.10.2015 in Doc.7822/2015 forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.Babu Rangasamy for M/s.Babu Rangasamy Associates For Respondents : Mr.T.M.Pappiah Special Government Pleader http://www.judis.nic.in 2 ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to refund the excess stamp duty of Rs.16,920/- and registration fees paid on 19.02.2015 for registering the rectification deed.
2. The facts of the case is that the petitioner has purchased a vacant house site measuring an extent of 2416 sq.ft. out of 4983 sq.ft bearing Plot No.4/2, Singaravelan Salai, North Street, Neelangarai, Chennai in S.No.75/1 by virtue of sale deed dated 04.09.2014. When the petitioner intended to construct a house in the subject property and applied for a housing loan with the bank, it was found that an inadvertent error had crept in in the sale deed dated 04.09.2014 that in the schedule of property, the Plot Number was mentioned as “Plot No.42/2” instead of “Plot No.4/2”. As it was a registered instrument, the same has to be corrected only by a rectification deed. The above said mistake was only a typographical error. Hence, the petitioner along with his vendor executed a rectification deed dated 19.10.2015 and presented before the second respondent. The second respondent insisted for payment of the stamp duty of Rs.16,920/- and also collected the registration charge of Rs.2,570/-. As the petitioner was in a hurry to get the loan sanctioned, he had paid the said stamp duty and http://www.judis.nic.in the registration charges and got the rectification deed registered. In fact, it is stated that the stamp duty was demanded by the second respondent only based on Circular No.40756/N1/2014, dated 03.09.2014. The said circular mentions that if there is only a change in the Survey Number, which would include/substitute a different property altogether, then the additional stamp duty has to be paid, whereas, in this case, admittedly, it is only a typographical error, where instead of “Plot No.4/2” it was mentioned as “Plot No.42/2”, which is an inadvertent mistake. Other than this, there is no change in Survey Number, boundaries or even extent of the land.
3. When there is no alteration in the basic nature of the document, especially in the extent and valuation of the property and the rectification is only of a typographical error, there is no question of application of Schedule I or application of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also produces a judgment of this Court reported in 2010-3-L.W. 252 (P.Uthamaraj vs. The District Registrar, Chennai South & others) in support of this case. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
http://www.judis.nic.in
11. It is no doubt true that section 47-A of the Act which is as follows:
"47-A. Instruments of conveyance etc., under-valued how to be dealt with.-
.......
... a reading of section 47-B it is clear that chargeability under Schedule I would be applicable only in cases where in the rectification deeds by making change in description of property from the previous instrument, the valuation is sought to be altered. It may arise in cases where by rectification the extent of the property is sought to be increased or altered by which the value of the property or superstructure may get increased. In those cases, certainly by applying section 47-B of the Act, the difference in stamp duty can be recovered by making calculation as per Schedule I. In cases where by rectification, there is no alteration in the basic nature of the document, especially in the extent and valuation of the property or where the rectification is only in respect of technical aspect such as typographical error or where the rectification is in respect of extent of property while the actual measurement remains unchanged, there is no question of application of Schedule I or application of section 47-A of the Act.
5. In as much as the rectification deed does not alter the survey number, extent or value and it is only a typographical error, imposing stamp duty on the rectification deed is illegal. In view of the above, the stamp duty of Rs.16,920/- collected has to be refunded to the petitioner. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to refund the said amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
http://www.judis.nic.in
6. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
15.03.2019
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
rsi
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 600 028.
2.The Sub Registrar, O/o. Sub Registrar, Neelangarai, Chennai.
http://www.judis.nic.in PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
rsi W.P. No.8585 of 2016 15.03.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in
இணையத்திலிருந்து திரட்டிய தகவல் இது
அன்புடன்
செல்வம் பழனிச்சாமி, 26.07.2020 ******************************************
