High Court Kerala High Court

Geetha vs The District Registrar Idukki on 21 August, 2009

Kerala High Court
Geetha vs The District Registrar Idukki on 21 August, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 16983 of 2009(P)


1. GEETHA, W/O. VIJAYANADHAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. ATHIRA K.V., D/O. VIJAYANADHAN NAIR,

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR IDUKKI,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SUB REGISTRAR THODUPUZHA,

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOICE GEORGE

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :21/08/2009

 O R D E R
                              V.GIRI,J.
                        -------------------------
                 W.P ( C) No. 16983 of 2009
                       --------------------------
               Dated this the 21st August,2009

                         J U D G M E N T

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

learned Government Pleader.

2. Second petitioner is the daughter of the 1st

petitioner. Second petitioner agreed to purchase 68 cents

of land from the 1st petitioner for a sale consideration of

Rs10,000/-. Thereafter, a sale deed was executed in terms

of the agreement and presented before the 2nd respondent

for registration. Second respondent has declined

registration on the ground that the property is grossly

under undervalued and actual consideration has not been

shown in the document. Hence the writ petition.

3. The Sub Registrar cannot decline to register the

document on the ground of under valuation except where

the property has been valued at a rate lower than the fair

value, if any, notified under Section 28A of the Stamp Act.

There is no such fair value notification.

W.P ( C) No. 16983 of 2009
2

4. In the circumstances, writ petition is disposed of

directing the 2nd respondent to register the original of

Ext.P1 as and when presented by the petitioner without

reference to the objection that the actual consideration has

not been shown in the document but subject to any other

formalities that are contemplated under the Registration

Act. It is made clear that registration of the document will

not stand in the way of the competent authority of the

Stamp Act including the respondents taking appropriate

steps under Section 45B of the Stamp Act, if so advised.

(V.GIRI,JUDGE)
ma

W.P ( C) No. 16983 of 2009
3

W.P ( C) No. 16983 of 2009
4