SHAINE RAVINDRANATHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Shaine Ravindranathan, purchased a flat and had it registered. Later, he realised that the property he purchased had already been conveyed to somebody else. In other words, mistakenly the owner, instead of selling one piece of property-a flat in an apartment-sold another piece. Therefore, Shaine approached the owner to have a "rectification deed". Indeed, the owner executed Ext.P4 Rectification Deed, which Shaine presented before the respondents for registration.

(2.) When the registering authorities insisted on collecting full stamp duty-as if it were a fresh conveyance- Shaine approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.12354 of 2017. A learned Single Judge, through judgment dated 11th January 2018, upheld the registering authority's objection: Ext.P4 amounted to a fresh conveyance. Further aggrieved, Shaine is before us.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that through the first deed of conveyance, the appellant got nothing-no property had been conveyed. He has contended that whatever stamp duty was paid had been intended to be paid for a proper conveyance. But no immovable property was actually conveyed. According to him, Ext.P4 only records and rectifies a mistake of fact, and it cannot be treated as a fresh conveyance.