T.KANAGARATHINAM Vs. SUB REGISTRAR PALLADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the notice No.Nil dated 27.07.2012 and the consequent notice dated 04.10.2012 relating to the registered settlement deed bearing document No.28294 of 2011 dated 26.12.2011 issued by the respondent.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that originally the property comprised in Survey No.222 of Palladam Village, Tiruppur Taluk measuring an extent of 9788 sq. ft. was purchased jointly by M.Mayilsamy and D.Karthikeyan under a sale deed dated 23.12.2005 registered as document No.9480 of 2005, Sub Registrar Office, Palladam. According to her, subsequently M.Mayilsamy and D.Karthikeyan have settled the above mentioned property absolutely to the petitioner (T.Kanagarathinam) and and T.Subbulakshmi out of natural love and affection under a settlement dated 26.12.2011 registered as document No.28294 of 2011, Sub Registrar Officer, Palladam.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that after the registration, they have also obtained the release of the document from the Sub Registrar's Office. According to the petitioner, all of a sudden, the respondent issued a notice under Section 33-A of the Stamp Act calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,98,888/- towards loss of stamp duty and Rs.36,615 towards loss of registration fees within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice. According to the petitioner, having paid the stamp duty for a settlement deed entered into between family members under Article 58(a) of the Stamp Act, the demand of the respondents for deficit stamp duty is illegal. It is also the case of the petitioner that any demand for deficit stamp duty under Section 33-A of the Stamp Act can be made only by the Registrar and not by a Sub-Registrar. Aggrieved by the impugned demand, this writ petition has been filed.