IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 5631 of 2010(D)
1. MOOLAKKANDI SURENDRAN, S/O.ANANDAN,
... Petitioner
2. VALAPPILE VEETTIL RAKESH,S/O.VISWANATHAN
Vs
1. THE SUB REGISTRAR, MATTANNUR SUB
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR KANNUR (GENERAL)
3. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
For Petitioner :SRI.N.NAGARESH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :01/03/2010
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C). No.5631/2010-D
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners have approached this Court seeking for
a direction to the first respondent to register a
rectification deed, a copy of which has been produced as
Ext.P3.
2. The grievance raised herein is in the following
circumstances. The first petitioner was the owner and in
possession of 29 > cents of land in Re-survey No.14/2 of
Pazhassi amsom, Kayani desom. From the said property, he
assigned 15 cents of land to the second petitioner as per
Ext.P2 sale deed.
3. After the same was registered, it was found that
instead of recording the document as No.901, it was
recorded as No.991 and, it was also found that the name of
the second petitioner was written as Valappile Veettil
Ragesh instead of Valappile Veettil Rakesh. The number 991
is to be corrected as No.901 and, the alphabet ‘g’ in
Ragesh is to be substituted by alphabet ‘k’. Accordingly,
they prepared a rectification deed. It is the case of the
petitioner that the first respondent insisted that the deed
W.P.(C). No.5631/2010
-:2:-
should be prepared in a stamp paper of Rs.45,000/- and an
amount of Rs.7,530/- has to be remitted towards stamp duty.
The petitioner contends that no stamp duty has to be paid
for registering the rectification deed and only an amount
of Rs.100/- has to be paid as registration fee. The
petitioner relies upon other documents which were
registered without collecting stamp duty. True copies of
the said documents, namely, document No.4044/2003, dated
20/11/2003 of S.R.O, Kannur and document No.629/1983, dated
07/04/1983 of S.R.O, Thalassery are produced as Exts.P4 and
P5.
4. The learned Government Pleader on instructions
submitted that so far the petitioners have not produced the
original of Ext.P3 for registration and if it is produced,
action will be taken in accordance with law.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that in the light of Section 23 of the Act, the respondent
may now raise an objection with regard to the registration
of the same as the period of four months provided therein
is over. The document was prepared on 28/10/2009. In that
view of the matter, the petitioners will be free to submit
another document for registration. If such a document is
prepared and produced for registration, the first
W.P.(C). No.5631/2010
-:3:-
respondent will receive the same and take appropriate
action in accordance with law for registering the same.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
ms