VENKATESAN Vs. DISTRICT REGISTRAR CENTRAL CHENNAI TEYNAMPET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of Prohibition, restraining the respondent from conducting any enquiry pursuant to the notice dated 29.12.2006.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that one K.Krishnaswamy, grandfather of the petitioner executed a Will in favour of the petitioner and his brother by name Suryanarayana, in respect of the property at No.14/7, I Floor, B-Block, Rajkamal Apartment, IV Trust Cross Street, Mandavelipakkam, R.A.Puram, Chennai-600028. Subsequently petitioner's brother Suryanarayana relinguished his 50% of his share in the property in favour of the petitioner by executing a release deed on 8.7.2002 and the same was registered as Document No.2144 of 2002 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Mylapore, Chennai.

(3.) INSOFAR as the legal contention raised by the petitioner that Section 33A was enacted to recover the deficit stamp duty from the party, the petitioner is bound to appear for personal enquiry and if any order is passed and if the petitioner is aggrieved, he can very well file an appeal before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration, Chennai-28, and therefore this writ petition is not maintainable. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the document was presented on 8.7.2002, registered on 2.8.2002 and the statutory period lapsed only on 1.8.2005, and the action having been initiated on 15.7.2005, i.e., within three years, the same is not barred by limitation under section 33A of the Act as contended in the affidavit.