LAWS(MAD)-2016-11-153

S. PREMAKALA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, COMMERCIAL TAXES & REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI

Decided On November 28, 2016
S. Premakala Appellant
V/S
State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By Secretary To Government, Commercial Taxes And Registration Department, Secretariat, Chennai Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.M.Sivavarthan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mr.R. Govindasamy, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(3.) Mr. M. Sivavarthan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that under the provisions of Sec. 17(2) of the Indian Registration Act, the sale certificate issued by a Court of law in Court Auction to a successful bidder is not a document required to be compulsorily registered under Sec. 89(2) of the Indian Registration Act, the sale certificate has to be communicated to the concerned Sub Registrar within whose jurisdiction the sold property is situated and it is the duty of the Sub Registrar to make an entry in Book No.1 and therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any irregularity. According to him, the sale certificate was received by the petitioner on 10th Nov., 2009 from the Debt Recovery Tribunal and on the same day, she had attested the said certificate as true copy and give it to the Assistant to file it and she was relieved from the concerned Sub Registrar's Office on 13.11.2009. Incidentally, 10.11.2009 happened to be Friday and the petitioner was relieved on the next working day, i.e.13.11.2009, being a Monday. Therefore, she did not have an occasion to deal with the sale certificate any further except to receive the same and hand it over to the Assistant and therefore the petitioner could not be said to be at fault. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the purchaser C.Ponnivalavan had not opted for registration and therefore, the question of compulsorily registration would not arise and more over, the respondents have already initiated steps under Revenue Recovery Act for the deficient stamp duty by attaching the property of the purchaser and hence, the respondents stand that there is revenue loss to the Government, is baseless.