A MANUAL Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and seven others including a company under the name and style of "Manuelsons Hotels Private Ltd.' formed a partnership concern under the name "Manuelsons Hotels' on 30-6-1985. The partners agreed to dissolve the firm with effect from 27-3-1987. The petitioner and seven others executed a deed of dissolution of partnership. The partners agreed that the entire business together with the assets and liabilities of the firm to be allotted to the eighth partner i.e. the company, Manuelsons Hotels Private Ltd. The deed was executed on stamp papers valued at Rs.200/-. Ext. P1 is the document dated 27-3-1987. This was presented for registration before the Sub Registrar, Kozhikode. Sub Registrar instead of registering the same, impounded the document and forwarded to the District Registrar (General), Kozhikode exercising powers of Collector on 30-3-1987. However the Sub Registrar demanded and collected a sum of Rs.46,984/- as registration fee when the document was presented before him. According to the Sub Registrar the document presented was a conveyance for Rs.46.92,647.64 requiring a stamp duty of Rs.3,51,952.50 and a dissolution of partnership requiring a stamp duty of Rs. 100 under Act 43(8) of the Kerala Stamp Act. He referred the matter to the District Registrar who also concurred with the Sub Registrar. It was further referred to the Inspector General of Registration, the first respondent herein who took the view that document is only a dissolution of partnership. The Board of Revenue to which also reference was made agreed with the view taken by the first respondent. Ext. P2 is the final order passed by the Board of Revenue on 25-3-1988.

(2.) As excess amount was collected from the petitioner on 27-5-1988 itself petitioner applied to the Inspector General of Registration seeking refund of Rs.46,984/- collected from the petitioner as registration fee on 27-3-1987 stating that the document is a conveyance. Ext. P3 is the said application. The first respondent appears to have rejected the request purporting to be under R.207 of the Registration Rules and this was informed to the petitioner by the Sub Registrar. Ext. P4 is the said communication. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the first respondent which was communicated to him through Ext. P4.

(3.) R.207 of the Registration Rules (Kerala) which is framed in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-s.(1) of S.69 of the Registration Act reads as follows: