Kappil Shoukath Ali Vs. Perinthalmanna Co-operative Agrl. and Rural Dev. Bank - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- what remains to be seen is as to whether pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. if these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under section 304b, ipc will be complete.[para 9] the question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of pinki. we must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9] it is clear that pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. the finding of the trial court and the appellate court in that behalf is correct. for this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10] it is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under section 304b, ipc with the aid of section 113b, indian evidence act but also the offence under section 201, ipc. [para 15] held: we have gone through the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court carefully and we find that both the courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. we, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]s. siri jagan, j.1. the petitioner availed of a loan from the perinthalmanna co-operative agricultural and rural development bank. as security for repayment of the same, the petitioner mortgaged certain properties belonging to the petitioner. since the petitioner committed default in repayment, that property was brought to sale. the property was sold. sale certificate was issued. thereafter, the petitioner moved the authorities under the kerala co-operative societies act for return of the property to the petitioner. the petitioner paid the entire amount and discharged the liability. the sale was set aside by the competent authority. in the meanwhile, the sale certificate had already been submitted before the sub registrar for registration under the indian registration act. the registrar passed ext. p5 order holding that deficient stamp duty has to be paid on the document. it is under the above circumstances the petitioner has approached this court seeking the following reliefs:(i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to call for the records leading to ext. p5 and quash the same;(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 5th respondent to return the sale certificate (no. p2-2007) to the 1st respondent bank and to release the same to the petitioner forthwith.2. i have heard the learned government pleader also. the learned government pleader would contend that there is no provision in the stamp act or the registration act for return of a document submitted for registration, which has been impounded without payment of the deficient stamp duty demanded.3. i have considered the rival contentions in detail.4. i am of opinion that once a sale is set aside and the sale certificate is cancelled by the superior authority, that sale certificate ceases to exist. thereafter, no proceedings under any legislation can be initiated in respect of the sale certificate. no deficient stamp duty can also be demanded in respect of that document insofar as, in the eye of law, that document no longerexists. the kerala stamp act has no independent existence without reference to other law of the land. when in a valid legal proceedings a document has been set aside, simply because that document had already been submitted for registration, the registering authority or the superior authority cannot proceed against that document under the stamp act as if that document is still valid, which would amount to negation of the law as per which the document has been cancelled.in the above circumstances, ext. p5 is quashed. respondents 4 and 5 are directed to return the sale certificate to the person who has produced the same for registration. it would be open to the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent to get the title deeds in respect of the mortgaged property. the writ petition is allowed as above.