MURALEEDHARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this court challenging Exts.P7 and P8 whereby the request of the petitioner to receive back the stamp papers and to refund the value of the same was declined stating that the application has been made beyond the period prescribed under Sec. 48 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959.

(2.) Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.597 of 2011 before the Additional Sub Court, North Paravur which was instituted for the realization of an amount of Rs.16,85,500.00. The suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner as per Ext.P1 decree dtd. 1/6/2013. In execution of the decree, the property attached was put to sale and the petitioner participated in the auction and the same was fixed in his favour. Petitioner has also remitted the value for the stamp paper required for the issuance of the sale certificate as evident from Ext.P3 receipt dtd. 21/10/2016. After the said remittance, the Principle Sub Judge purchased the requisite stamp papers for a value of Rs.2,80,000.00 on 22/12/2016. An appeal was preferred by the defendant in the suit before this Court as F.A.O. No.142 of 2018 and in the said appellate proceedings, the dispute was settled through mediation and the settlement was recorded and Ext.P5 judgment was passed on 22/3/2019. As per the terms of the settlement, the petitioner herein is entitled to receive back Rs.2,80,000.00 towards the value of stamp paper remitted by him. Towards the refund of the unused stamp papers, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 application, E.A. No.474 of 2019 in E.P.No.195 of 2013 in O.S.No.597 of 2011 on 7/11/2019 and the same was forwarded to the Collector on 10/12/2019 directly through the court staff. By Ext.P6 communication, the 3rd respondent addressed the 2nd respondent intimating the inability to consider the application for refund since an application in this regard was not filed within six months as mandated in Ss. 47 and 48 of the Kerala Stamp Act. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent returned the unused stamp papers with Ext.P7 covering letter stating the very same reasons in Ext.P6. It is aggrieved by the same that the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) Petitioner contends that the matter has been settled outside the court as provided in Sec. 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the settlement arrived at is a judicial settlement and Ext.P5 is invariably a decree. Exts.P6 and P7 were issued without any application of mind and without taking into consideration the fact that the stamp paper in question was purchased by the court and was in possession of the court. Ext.P8 application was submitted by the petitioner in this regard and the court has passed Ext.P9 order wherein it was ordered to issue refund order.