← Library
Madras High CourtWP/14707/2021disposed of

A.Karthikeyan v. The Sub-Registrar

2021-08-05Honourable Mr Justice C.V. Karthikeyan4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05.08.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN W.P.No.14707 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.15608 of 2021 A.Karthikeyan .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The Sub-Register Surampatti Sub-Registrar office, Erode - 638 002.

2.Muthulakshmi 3.S.Rani 4.S.Nithya 5.S.Thaarani 6.T.Kasilingam .. Respondents Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the final notice dated 08.01.2021 issued by the 1st respondent in proceeding Na.Ka.No.261/2020 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to register and release the exchange deed bearing no.1624/2020 dated 15.07.2020 and other supporting documents that have been submitted. For Petitioner .. Mr.Kumaresh Babu for V.Balamurugane For R1 .. Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan (Govt. Advocate)

ORDER

The writ petition has been filed in the nature of the Certiorarified Mandamus seeking interference with respect to notice dated 08.01.2021 issued by the 1st respondent / SubRegistrar, Surampatti Sub-Registrar Office, Erode in Na.Ka.No.261/2020 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to register and release an Exchange Deed bearing

no.1624/2020 dated 15.07.2020 which had been presented by the petitioner herein along with the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents. 2.The petitioner has a tenant who is the 6th respondent herein. The 6th respondent is the proprietor of Ero Retreading Company in the premises of the petitioner, which premises was the subject matter of an Exchange Deed presented before the 1st respondent to be registered.

3.It is informed by Mr.Kumaresh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner that the retreading company would have machineries embedded to the floor, but machineries belong only to the tenant and the petitioner does not claim and also cannot claim any right or interest with the said machineries. 4.Let me not delve more deeply into the facts except to state that the Exchange Deed as stated was presented by the petitioner and the 2nd to 5th respondents. After receiving the said document, the 1st respondent made a visit to the premises to determine the value of the building and in the course of the such inspection and such determination of the value had also valued the machineries which were embedded to the floor and which he probably presumed belonged to the petitioner. 5.

Therefore, he issued a notice directing the petitioner to pay the stamp duty and registration charges towards the value of the said machineries. This notice was originally issued on 07.12.2020 by Letter No.101/2020. The petitioner naturally raised objections. He did not want to pay stamp duty and registration charges for the machineries which did not belong to him and belonged to the tenant, who had also instituted a suit against the petitioner seeking protection from dispossession except by due process of law.

6.The petitioner therefore, issued a letter dated 23.12.2020 giving clarifications. But however, the said stand of the 1st respondent was reiterated by order dated 08.01.2021 in Na.Ka.No.261/2020. The 1st respondent did not shift from his stand and reiterated his position that the petitioner should pay stamp duty and registration charges towards the value of the machineries of his tenant which he had no intention of either conveying or claiming ownership or even title. 7.This order has led to the filing of the present writ petition.

8.In the course of the order, the Sub-Registrar had stated that the petitioner herein had not presented any documents to show that the said machineries actually belonged to the 6th respondent / tenant and that the petitioner had no direct

interest or title over the same. The 1st respondent had also stated that the petitioner did not state why those machineries were not included in the Exchange Deed presented for registration.

9.There appears to be a gap between the petitioner's intention and what he and the 2nd to 5th respondents wanted to convey by way of the Exchange Deed and what the Sub-Registrar, 1st respondent, presumably felt was actually sought to be conveyed.

10.This can be very easily clarified by the petitioner on producing document relating to tenancy and if the 6th respondent, hopefully if he co-operates, by producing documents relating to the title of the machineries which are embedded in the rented portion.

11.I would give an opportunity to the petitioner to once again to approach the 1st respondent with relevant documents and with relevant particulars relating to embedded machineries. This exercise should be completed within a period of three weeks along with a copy of this order. Thereafter, the 1st respondent may make necessary enquiries giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and also if require hear the 6th respondent and thereafter pass a considered order with respect to imposing additional stamp duty and registration charges for the machineries. That exercise may be completed by the 1st respondent within a period of four weeks from the date on which clarification is issued by the petitioner herein. No other orders are required.

12.The impugned order is therefore interfered with and set aside and a request is placed on the 1st respondent to revisit the order on the basis of the representations / clarifications made by the petitioner.

13.This writ petition is disposed of with the above terms. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar smv

To The Sub-Register Surampatti Sub-Registrar office, Erode - 638 002.

+1cc to Mr.V.Balamurugane, Advocate, S.R.No.38781 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.39091 W.P.No.14707 of 2021 VBM(CO) CT/25/08/2021