Mrs. Mecca Mehrunnissa Begum Vs. Chief Revenue Controlling Authority - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[m.jaichandren , j.] indian stamp act, 1899. - section 5 -- the learned additional government pleader appearing for the respondents had submitted that if dharmaprakash j.kumar has not been shown as a vendor, it cannot be said that the sale deed, dated 24.3.2011, contains multiple transactions. thereafter, the sale deed would be submitted for registration before the second respondent. further, dharmaprakash j.kumar would not sign the sale deed, as a vendor.this writ petition is filed under article 226 of the constitution of india praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent in d.dis.no.30196/p1/2011 dated 13.09.2011 confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 03.05.2011 in i2/2011 and quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to register the sale deed which has been assigned as p.no.52 of 2011.o r d e r1. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned additional government pleader appearing for the respondents.2. the main objection pointed out by the respondents, in their impugned orders, dated 3.5.2011 and 13.9.2011, is that one dharmaprakash j.kumar, has been shown as a vendor in the sale deed sought to be registered on the file of the second respondent, in respect of the property in question, even though he is only an agreement holder.3. the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that it is clear, from the recitals on page no.11 of the sale deed, dated 24.3.2011, that the third vendor has no title in respect of the scheduled mentioned property. however, he has been shown as a vendor, only by way of abundant caution and therefore, the sale deed cannot be construed to contain multiple transactions, as per section 5 of the indian stamp act, 1899.4. the learned additional government pleader appearing for the respondents had submitted that if dharmaprakash j.kumar has not been shown as a vendor, it cannot be said that the sale deed, dated 24.3.2011, contains multiple transactions. therefore, the value of the property being conveyed, by way of the said sale deed, would be assessed, for the purpose of payment of stamp duty, as if it is in respect of a single transaction of sale.5. he had further submitted that dharmaprakash j.kumar may be described in the sale deed, only as a vendor and therefore, he would not be allowed to affix his signature, in the said sale deed, as a vendor.6. in view of the said submissions made by the learned additional government pleader appearing for the respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the necessary amendments would be made in the recitals in the sale deed, dated 24.3.2011, showing dharmaprakash j.kumar only as an agreement holder not as a vendor. thereafter, the sale deed would be submitted for registration before the second respondent. further, dharmaprakash j.kumar would not sign the sale deed, as a vendor.7. in view of the above submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, the second respondent is directed to permit the petitioner to make the necessary amendments, in the recitals in the sale deed, dated 24.3.2011, as suggested by the learned additional government pleader appearing for the respondents. on such amendments being made, the second respondent shall register the said sale deed, if it is otherwise in order, on payment of the appropriate stamp duty, considering the transaction to be a single transaction. after such registration, the sale deed shall be released to the parties concerned, within a period of two weeks thereafter. further, it is made clear that dharmaprakash j.kumar shall not be shown in the sale deed, as a vendor and he shall not sign the said sale deed, as a vendor.the writ petition is ordered accordingly. no costs. connected m.p.nos.1 and 2 of 2011 are closed.