T DULIP SINGH Vs. CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION KAMARAJAR SALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records comprised in proceedings of the first respondent in Pa.Mu.No.50470/E3/97 dated 3.11.1998 confirming the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Pa.Mu.No.72582/E3/93 dated 5.6.95, quash the same and direct the respondent to refund the excess stamp duty collected by the respondents to the petitioner.

(2.) Heard Mr.R.Premkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms.V.Velumani, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. With the consent of either side, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

(3.) According to the petitioner, a senior member of the Madras Bar, he joined the firm of M/s.King and Patridge in the year 1967 carrying on business as Advocates and Solicitors. The petitioner became a partner of the firm on 1.10.1979, which firm has located its branches in Madras, Ooty, Bangalore and Hyderabad. The firm purchased a property in Ooty known as Brambly Lodge, hereinafter referred to as the property. The property is shown as the property of the firm in the books of accounts of the firm as well as in its balance sheet. For the purpose of administrative convenience, it was decided to bifurcate the Bangalore Branch from Madras and to have two separate firms so that the Madras firm will function within the territory of Tamil Nadu and the other firm at Bangalore. It was also decided to have a parent firm, viz., King and Patridge Holding, which holding firm continued to hold the property in Ooty.