IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15492 of 2009(F)
1. C.UDHAYABHASKAR,
... Petitioner
2. A.NOORJAHAN, W/O.M.A.AZIZ,
Vs
1. THE SUB REGISTRAR, PALAKKAD.
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, PALAKKAD.
3. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.H.BADARUDDIN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :12/06/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C).No.15492 of 2009
-------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader.
2. The petitioners entered into an agreement for
sale of 32 cents of property comprised in different survey
numbers in Block No.16, Ward No.5 of Koppam Amsom,
Palakkad, as evidenced by Ext.P1. The consideration in the
agreement is Rs.12,80,000/-. Pursuant thereto, a sale deed
was drawn with the first petitioner conveying the property
in favour of the 2nd petitioner as per Ext.P2. Ext.P2 was
submitted for registration. The 1st respondent refused to
register Ext.P2 on the ground that the consideration shown
in the document is far lower than the value of the property
shown in the original title deed, bearing No.1855/07. It is
in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed
praying for the following reliefs:
W.P.(C).No.15492 of 2009
:: 2 ::
(a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate order or direction directing the
respondents to register the Ext.P2 Sale Deed
for the consideration which passed between
the parties without determining the market
value of the property;
(b) to issue a writ of prohibition prohibiting the
respondents to compel the petitioners to
quote higher value in the Sale deed as
consideration contrary to the actual
consideration passed between them for the
sale of the property;
(c) to grant such other and further reliefs as that
are warranted under the law this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the interest
of justice.
3. The Sub Registrar refused to register the
document merely because, according to him, the property
is undervalued. If a fair value of the property, as per
Section 28A of the Registration Act, is published the
document cannot be registered, at a value lower than the
said value. The reason stated in Ext.P3, the communication
issued by the Sub Registrar, refusing to register the
W.P.(C).No.15492 of 2009
:: 3 ::
document is that the value of the property in the prior
document to Ext.P2 is Rs.67,20,000/- and the value shown
in Ext.P2 is Rs.12,80,000/-. This, as stated above, is not an
adequate reason for refusing registration. The petitioner
relies on Ext.P5 notification wherein the value of the land
lying within the Palakkad Municipality is shown. In these
circumstances, the Sub Registrar is bound to register
Ext.P2. But, this does not prevent him from taking
proceedings against the petitioner for realising deficit
stamp duty and for realisation of penalty in accordance
with the provisions contemplated by Section 45 B of the
Stamp Act. I make it clear that the directions which I
propose to issue is only to register the document. It is not
an expression of my opinion on the correctness of the
consideration shown by the petitioners in Ext.P2 document.
It will be perfectly open to the Sub Registrar or any other
authority to take action under Section 45 B of the Stamp
Act or any other enabling provision in the Statute.
W.P.(C).No.15492 of 2009
:: 4 ::
4. Accordingly, the 1st respondent is directed to
register the original of Ext.P2, as and when it is presented.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
(V.GIRI)
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge