ABDUL JALEEL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The possibility and procedure in getting refund of value of impressed stamps and executed instruments is the issue arising for consideration in this case. Petitioner purchased non-judicial stamp paper to the value of Rs. 16,600/- on 30-8-1994 for the purpose of execution of a sale deed. The vendors Mr. P.T. Skaria and Mrs. Chinnamma Skaria executed a document by affixing the signatures on 31-8-1996. The same was promised to be registered on 1-9-1994. It is stated in the Writ Petition that Sri. Skaria fell ill on 31-8-1994 after the execution and hence registration did not take place on 1-9-1994. It was noticed that there was a mistake in the extent and survey number of the property and hence the registration got delayed further. In the meanwhile Sri.P.T. Skaria died. It is submitted that after correcting the mistake the legal heirs of Sri. Skaria along with Smt. Chinnamma Skaria executed another document on 3-8-1996 and got the same registered on the same date. Ext.P1 is the copy of the instrument executed on 31.8.1994 and Ext.P2 is the copy of the one executed on 3.8.1996. Since Ext.P1 document was rendered unfit for the intended purpose, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application dated 20.2.1995 for refund of the value of the stamp paper. Petitioner filed another application Ext. P4 dated 5.8.1996 submitting also that the sale in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1 had been executed on 3.8.1996 on another instrument and for that reason also the request for refund was made. The request was turned down as per Ext.P5. It is stated in Ext.P5 that since the documents have already been executed, it is not possible under Section 47 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 to refund the amount covered by the instrument. Hence the Writ Petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is entitled to get refund of the value since the stamp used for the instrument has been found unfit, by reason of error or mistake, for the purpose originally intended. It is also submitted that he is entitled to the refund by way of allowance under Section 47(c)(6) since another instrument (Ext.P2) had already been executed in respect of the same property covered by Ext.P1 instrument the value of which is sought to be refunded. Learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, submits that since Ext.P1 document had already been executed, the petitioner is not entitled to the refund; the refund is permissible only in the case of spoiled stamps.

(3.) Chapter V of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 deals with allowances for stamps in certain cases. Section 47, the first provision under that Chapter, deals with allowances for spoiled stamps. The said section reads as follows:--