HELEN JAYARAJ Vs. SUB REGISTRAR OF MYLAPORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions have been filed by the same individual, Mrs. Helen Jayaraj, under art. 226 of the Constitution of India, W.P. No. 623 of 1976, being for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the Sub -Registrar, Mylapore, Madras, the first respondent, relating to Enquiry No. 1 of 1975, and for quashing the order dated November 26., 1975, passed by him in that enquiry as confirmed by the order of the Inspector General of Registration, Madras, the second respondent, dated January 5, 1976, and W.P. No. 832 of 1976, being for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction or order directing the Second ITO, City Circle, II(2), Madras -34, the fourth respondent and the Commissioner of Income -tax, III Circle, Madras -34, the fifth respondent, to issue an I.T. Clearance Certificate under s. 230A of the I.T. Act, 1961, in relation to the third respondent in respect of income -tax and other taxes specified in this section for registering the document dated March 3, 1974, executed by the third respondent in favour of the petitioner and the seventh respondent which has been presented for compulsory registration by the petitioner before the first respondent. It is unnecessary to state the facts mentioned in W.P. No. 623 of 1976, which has to be dismissed having regard to the fact that appropriate reliefs have been prayed for in W.P. No. 832 of 1976 According to the petitioner, the third respondent had executed settlement deed dated March 3, 1974, in favour of herself and her sister, the seventh respondent, both of whom are the daughters of the third respondent, in respect of properties valued at more than rupees fifty thousand. Subsequent to the execution of the settlement deed, the third respondent declined to have the document registered. The petitioner, therefore, presented the document before the first respondent, the Sub -Registrar on June 15, 1974, for compulsory registration after paying the deficit stamp fee of Rs. 1, 380.25 together with penalty of Rs. 100. The first respondent conducted an enquiry in Enquiry No. 1 of 1975, on his file and passed an order dated May 13, 1975, holding that the document had been duly executed by the third respondent and is liable for compulsory registration and that having regard to the fact that the properties in respect of which the settlement deed was executed by the third respondent are valued at more than Rs. 50, 000, an I.T. Clearance Certificate under s. 230A of the I.T. Act, 1961, has to be produced for registering the document. The petitioner filed an application before the first respondent on July 15, 1975, requesting him to dispense with the production of the I.T. Clearance Certificate on the ground that s. 230A does not apply to involuntary transfers.

(2.) PROCEEDING on the basis that the document dated March 3, 1974, is an involuntary document, she produced the copy of the judgment in C. S. Loganathan v. P. L.Kapur along with the application. The first respondent passed the impugned order dated November 26, 1975, declining to dispense with the I.T. Clearance .Certificate. Thereafter

(3.) IN the correspondence between the learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 4 and 5 on the one hand and the Commissioner on the other, one other reason for the I.T. Dept. declining to issue a certificate under s. 230A of the I.T. Act, 1961, to the petitioner is mentioned, and that is, the third respondent is now no more and the application for the certificate had been made only by the petitioner herein and the petitioner's sister, the seventh respondent had objected to the issuance of the certificate. Merely because a reference has been made in sub -s. (2) of s. 230A of the Act to the person referred to in sub -s. (1), namely, the person who purports to transfer, assign etc., his interest in properties valued at more than fifty thousand rupees, the I.T. Dept. cannot, in my opinion, decline to issue a certificate in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the third respondent had objected to the same with the object of defeating the rights claimed by the petitioner under the document and also because the seventh respondent appears to have objected to the issuance of the certificate in favour of the petitioner.