The Sub Registrar v. Thara Devi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.03.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN Review Application Nos. 9, 10 and 11 of 2018
1. The Sub-Registrar, Hosur, Krishnagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
2. The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) Salem.
3. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road.
Chennai 600 028.
... Review Petitioners in all the applications vs.
Thara Devi ... Respondent in Rev Appl. No.9/2018 Kamal B.Sethiya ... Respondent in Rev Appl.No.10/2018 Mithun B.Sethiya ... Respondent in Rev Appl.No.11/2018 Review Applications have been filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Section 114 of C.P.C, against the judgment and decree passed in C.M.A Nos.198, 199 and 200 of 2015, dated 24.08.2017 on the file of the High Court. For Review Petitioners : Mrs. A.Madhumathi Additional Government Pleader For Respondents : Mr.N.E.A.Dinesh for M/s.V.Nicholas
J U D G M E N T
These Review Applications have been filed seeking for review of the judgment dated 24.08.2017 passed in C.M.A Nos.198, 199 and 200 of 2015.
2. These Review Applications have been filed by the respondents seeking review of the Common Order dated 24.08.2017 made in CMA Nos.198, 199 and 200 of 2015, wherein the orders under challenged were passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/ Inspector General of Registration, invoking the suo-motu powers under Section 47-A (6) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1989. The appeals have been allowed by me mainly on the ground that the suomotu powers cannot be invoked by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/ Inspector General of Registration, solely based on the audit objections. I have also relied upon the judgments of this Court in Rajendran v. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and two others, reported in 2012 (3) LW 606 and M/s.Karpagavinayaga Associates v. The Inspector General of Registration of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2014 (5) LW 280, in support of my conclusions.
3. In the grounds of review, though the review petitioners would referred to the judgment of this Court in WPMP No.1922 of 2004 etc. dated 01.07.2007 is conceded by the learned Additional Government Pleader the said Judgment has no application to the facts of this case. The subsequent Division Bench judgment of this Court in The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District v. M.Alfred and others reported in 2017 (5) LW 212, dated 09.10.2017 also does not deal with the aspect relating to the scope of the powers of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/ Inspector General of Registration, while invoking the suo-motu powers. Hence, I do not see any error apparent on the face of the record to enable to entertain the reviews, the Review Petitions are dismissed. No costs. 21.03.2018 jv Index: No Internet: Yes Speaking order
R.SUBRAMANIAN,J.
Jv To
1. The Sub-Registrar, Hosur, Krishnagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
2. The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) Salem.
3. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road.
Chennai 600 028.
Review Application Nos. 9, 10 and 11 of 2018 21.03.2018