Synash Begum v. The Dist Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17.06.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA SA.Nos.27 of 2010, 34 of 2010 and 42 of 2010 1.Synash Begum 2.S.R.Fairooz 3.S.R.Aajaz 4.Minor Masa ... Appellants in SA.Nos.27 and 34 of 2010 ...Appellants/Plaintiffs 1.M.Ganesan 2.G.Saravanan ... Appellants in SA.No.42 of 2010 ...Appellants/Plaintiffs vs.

1.The District Collector, Vellore District, Vellore.

2.The Deputy Collector(Stamps), Vellore -2.

3.The Sub Registrar, Gudiyattam Sub Registrar's Office, Gudiyattam.

.... Respondents in all SAs ... Respondents/Defendants COMMON PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the decree and Judgment dated 15.10.2009 in AS.No.4 of 2009, 5 of 2009 and 6 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gudiyattam, Vellore District upholding the decree and Judgment dated 23.01.2008 in OS.No.485 of 2005, 486 of 2005 and 249 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gudiyattam.

For appellants in all Sas : Mr.T.Dhanyakumar For Respondents in all SAs: Mr.S.Jaganathan, Government Advocate(CS)

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T The appellants in SA.Nos.27 of 2010, 34 of 2010 and 42 of 2010 are the plaintiffs in OS.Nos.485 of 2005, 486 of 2005 and 295 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif, Gudiyattam. They filed the above suits for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to return the sale deeds numbered as documents 2772 of 2002, 2771 of 2002 and 1723 of 1998 on the file of the SubRegister, Gudiyattam.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court and at appropriate places their ranks in this appeal would also be indicated if necessary.

3. The brief averments of the plaints is as follows: The plaintiffs purchased the suit properties for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only), Rs.1,10,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Ten Thousand only) and Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) respectively.

When the documents were presented for registration with the third defendant after paying necessary registration fee, the second defendant informed the plaintiffs that the documents could be returned only after payment of additional stamp duty as the sale consideration do not reflect the market value. Since, the defendants did not return the sale deeds, the plaintiffs filed the above suits for the relief as stated above.

4. The defendants filed a written statement contending that the plaintiffs presented the sale deeds for registration on 25.06.2002 and 22.04.1998 with the stamp duty of Rs.18,010/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand and Ten only), Rs.13,200/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand and Two Hundred only) and Rs.54,000/- (Rupees Fifty Four Thousand only) respectively. According to them, as per the Guidelines Register maintained by the third defendant, the plaintiffs have to pay stamp duty of Rs.35,340/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Three Hundred and Forty only) Rs.23,604/- (Rupees Twenty Three Thousand Six Hundred and Four only) and Rs.1,43,616/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Three Thousand Six Hundred and Sixteen only) respectively. Therefore, the documents were sent to the second defendant for recovering the difference in stamp duty.

Thereafter, the second defendant sent Form nos. I and II to the plaintiffs for paying the difference amount. However, the plaintiffs neither filed any objections nor availed the concession provided by the Government as per G.O.Ms.No.193 dated 28.12.2004. Thereafter, final orders were passed and the same was also intimated to the plaintiffs. However, they did not prefer any appeal within 15 days as provided under the Indian Stamp Act.

the amendment of Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned District Munsif, Gudiyattam framed necessary issues and after full contest dismissed the suits filed by the plaintiffs. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiffs filed appeals in AS.No. 4 of 2009, 5 of 2009 and 6 of 2009 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Gudiyattam, Vellore District. The learned Subordinate Judge, Gudiyattam, Vellore District after analysing the evidence on record upheld the findings recorded by the trial court. Now the present Second Appeals are filed by the plaintiffs on the following substantial questions of law:

"(i) Whether the failure on the part of the defendants to follow the procedure as laid down under Rules 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 vitiates Ex.B1 and the same is non-est in law and not binding on the plaintiffs.

(ii) Whether the decisions of the courts below that the suit is not maintainable is contrary to Section 9 of CPC especially when the suit is not expressly or impliedly barred under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

(iii) Whether the proceedings initiated by the defendants under the Tamil nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 is barred by limitation."

6. At the outset, it may observed that the Section 47(A)(1) of the Indian Stamp Act provides remedy to file appeal against the orders passed under the Act. The plaintiffs without filing any appeal under the provisions of the Act, had directly approached the Civil Court. The plaintiffs have remedies available under Section 47(A)(10) of the Indian Stamp Act which reads as follows:

"any person aggrieved by an order of the authority prescribed under Sub-section (5) or the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Sub section (b) may within such time and in such manner, as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, appeal to the High Court"

7. Due to the non-payment of differential stamp duty by the plaintiffs, the second defendant passed the final order and the order was also admittedly communicated to the plaintiffs. Ex.B1, a copy of Form I and II and final orders dated 05.09.2005, 23.12.2002 and 19.11.2004, clearly show that the defendants claimed differential / deficit stamp duty on 18.07.2002 and 22.11.1999 under Form No. I and passed the final order on 19.08.2006 and 19.08.2005 respectively. Before passing the final orders, the plaintiffs did not file any objections and even after receipt of the final orders, they did not file any appeal as provided under Section 47(A)(10) of the Indian Stamp Act.

8. The plaintiffs have approached the Civil Court without exhausting their remedy before appropriate forum. Ex.B1 clearly shows final orders have been passed by the authorities concerned and the same were communicated to the plaintiffs on time. Therefore, the proceedings initiated by the respondents cannot be said to be barred by limitation. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly.

9. Both the courts below have dealt with all the aspects of the case in extenso and suffice it to say that the decrees and Judgments passed by both the courts below are unassailable. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the Second Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Subordinate Judge, Gudiyattam, Vellore District.

2.The District Munsif Court, Gudiyattam.

+1cc to M/s.T.Dhanyakumar, Advocate SR.49232 +1cc to the Government Pleader Sr.48983 SA.Nos.27, 34 and 42 of 2010 ppa[co] srg 06/02/2020