M.MOHAMMED RAFI Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings No.10238/R3/2010 dated 25.5.2010 on the file of the first respondent and direct the respondents to cancel the endorsement validating the document by the third respondent under Serial No.49/2006 dated 18.08.2006 within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that one Gopal, Son of R.N. Narasimhan got his right in the subject matter of the property under registered Partition deed dated 29.03.1972 effected between Narasiman and his sons Gopal and Kannan. The B-schedule property was allotted to the said Gopal under the said partition deed. Based on the partition deed, Gopal effects a sale in favour of his mother one Pappammal residing at Madurai at Parasala, Kerala State under Document No.1075/1992 dated 25.02.1992. Subsequently, the said Gopal cancelled the sale deed under registered Document No.948 of 2002 dated 01.06.2002 at Parasala, Kerala State. On 11.02.2006 the said Pappammal, mother of Gopal died. The said Gopal gave General Power of Attorney in favour of one Mohammed Salim, on 07.04.2006. On 18.01.2008, the property was sold to the petitioner by the said Salim as a Power Agent, under a registered sale deed in Document No.386 of 2008 before the Sub Registrar of Madurai South. The property was registered and transferred in the name of the petitioner. The property tax, water tax, drainage tax and the electricity charges are being paid in the name of the petitioner.

(3.) Thereafter, one Kannan who is the brother of the said Gopal, along with his other sisters, namely Andal, Thayarammal and Malliga sold the schedule property on 07.05.2008, to one Navaneethan and his wife Indhumathi. When the petitioner came to know the said fact and that they are trying to transfer the property to their name, the petitioner applied for the Encumbrance certificate of the property and found that the sale deed dated 25.02.1992 executed by the petitioner vide Document No.1075 of 1992 has been re-validated and deficit stamp duty was collected by the 3rd respondent. On receipt of the communication under the Right to Information Act , the petitioner filed a revision before the 1st respondent. Since the revision was rejected by the 1st respondent, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court, on the ground that initiation of revalidation is barred by limitation, under Section 19-B(4) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.