Since in the instant case, the time for filing the
Appeal came to over on 20.10.2011 and since no Appeal was filed, the decree can be said to have become final on the said day, it necessarily
will have to follow that the document which was lodged on 27.12.2011
was within time. The period of seven months that has been taken by the Authority to adjudicate the stamp duty and the penalty payable obviously
cannot be taken into consideration whilst computing the period of said four months as also the period which has been spent whilst prosecuting
the above petition.
Bombay High Court
Kirti Jagdish Mulani vs H on 17 January, 2013
Bench: R. M. Savant
1 Rule, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. om
2 The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner seeks B
leave to amend prayer clause (b) so as to correct the year 2012 to 2011. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 3 The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 10.07.2012 S.K.Talekar
passed by the Controller of Stamps Mumbai. By the said order, the rt
Petitioner has been communicated the stamp duty as well as the penalty payable for registration of the document in question. However, what the ou
Petitioner is aggrieved by is Clause 4 of the said order, which reads thus : "4) In view of the G.R.Kra.K./4/Pra.K/617/2011/3008 C
dated 22-12-2011 issued by the Hon'ble Registrar and Controller of Stamps, Pune, since the present deed is executed on 6/08/2011, the same cannot be registered under the provisions of India Registration h
Act, 1908 which please note."
ig
The document which the Petitioner wanted to get registered is the consent decree which has been passed on the basis of the consent H
terms between the parties in S.C.Suit No.135/2008 in the Bombay City Civil Court. The said consent decree was passed on 17.08.2011. The y
Petitioner had applied for a certified copy of the same on 2.09.2011 and a ba
certified copy was furnished to the Petitioner on 4.10.2011. The consent decree was lodged for registration on 27.12.2011 and after it was so om
lodged, the adjudication in respect of the stamp duty and penalty payable was computed and communicated to the Petitioner on 10.07.2012. B
4 In the context of the challenge which is raised in the Petition, it would be relevant to note the provisions of Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, the same are reproduced hereinunder : "23. Time for presenting documents Subject to the provisions contained in sections 24, 25 and 26, no document other than a will shall be accepted rt
for registration unless presented for that purpose to the proper officer within four months from the date of its execution:
ou
PROVIDED that a copy of a decree or order may be presented within four months from the date on which the decree or order was made or, where it is appealable, C
within four months from the day on which it becomes final.
(emphasis supplied)
h
17[23A. Re-registration of certain documents : ig
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, if in any case a document requiring registration has been accepted for registration by a Registrar or Sub- H
Registrar from a person not duly empowered to present the same, and has been registered, any person claiming under such document may, within four months from his first becoming aware that the registration of such y
document is invalid, present such document or cause the same to be presented, in accordance with the provisions ba
of Part VI for re-registration in the office of the Registrar of the district in which the document was originally registered; and upon the Registrar being satisfied that the document was so accepted for registration from a om
person not duly empowered to present the same, he shall proceed to the re-registration of the document as if it has not been previously registered, and as if such presentation for re-registration was a presentation for registration made within the time allowed therefor under Part IV, and all the provisions of this Act, as to B
registration of documents, shall apply to such re- registration; and such document, if duly re-registered in accordance with the provisions of this section, shall be deemed to have been duly registered for all purposes from the date of its original registration: PROVIDED that, within three months from the twelfth day of September, 1917, any person claiming under a document to which this section applies may present the S.K.Talekar
same or cause the same to be presented for re- registration in accordance with this section, whatever rt
may have been the time when he first became aware that the registration of the document was invalid.]" ou
5 In so far as, the consent decree is concerned, the time which is C
stipulated is four months after the it becomes final. It seems that the time which the Authority took to adjudicate the stamp duty has been taken into h
consideration by the Authority and that is how the Authority in Clause 4 of the order has observed that since the deed is executed on 6.08.2011, the ig
same cannot be registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, H
1908.
y
6 In the said context, the learned AGP Mr.Mattos, draws my attention ba
to the communication dated 7.12.2012 addressed to the Petitioner by the Collectors Stamps. The said communication is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. By the said communication, the Petitioner om
has been informed that Clause 4 of the impugned order stands deleted. In view of the said communication, in so far Clause 4 is concerned, the B
grievance of the Petitioner would not survive. However, the issue still remains as to whether the Petitioner has lodged the said document within the time stipulated under Section 23A of the Registration Act, 1908. The said issue would therefore have to be addressed. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.Singh appearing on behalf of the rt
Petitioner would contend that since the application for certified copy was made on 2.09.2011 and the certified copy was furnished to the Petitioner ou
on 4.10.2011, the Appeal period would come to an end on 20.10.2011 and since no Appeal has been filed the decree can be said to have C
become final on the said day. The learned Senior counsel would contend that the four months' period which is stipulated in Section 23A would h
therefore have to be computed from 20.10.2011, since the document was ig
lodged on 27.12.2011, the same is within time. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that the time the Authority took to H
adjudicate upon the said document cannot be held to the detriment of the Petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that the Petitioner has y
deposited both the stamp duty and the penalty. ba
8 Per Contra, the learned AGP would contend that since the said om
Clause 4 has been withdrawn by the latter dated 7.2.2012, the grievance of the Petitioner now does not survive. The learned AGP however submitted that if the period taken for adjudication is excluded, the B
document lodged on 27.12.2011 by the Petitioner can be said to have been lodged within the time stipulated in Section 23A of the Registration Act.
S.K.Talekar
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties. In my view, there rt
is merit in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that the period taken for adjudication cannot be held to the detriment of ou
the Petitioner, in computing the period of four months' which is stipulated in the said provision. Since in the instant case, the time for filing the C
Appeal came to over on 20.10.2011 and since no Appeal was filed, the decree can be said to have become final on the said day, it necessarily h
will have to follow that the document which was lodged on 27.12.2011 ig
was within time. The period of seven months that has been taken by the Authority to adjudicate the stamp duty and the penalty payable obviously H
cannot be taken into consideration whilst computing the period of said four months as also the period which has been spent whilst prosecuting y
the above petition. As indicated above, the grievance of the Petitioner is ba
only in respect of Clause 4, as otherwise as per the learned Senior Counsel, the amount of stamp duty and penalty has already been om
deposited by the Petitioner. In the light of the above, though there is no necessity to set aside the instant order in view of the fact that the Respondent No.2 has deleted Clause 4 from the impugned order, the
relief in terms of prayer clause (b) is required to be granted and is accordingly granted.
Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with the rt
parties to bear their respective costs. ou
(R.M. SAVANT, J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment