IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 18265 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KAPPIL SHOUKATH ALI,S/O.ABDU, AGED 52 YEARS,VELIYANCHNERRY P.O., MELATTUR (VIA),MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE PERINTHALMANNA CO.OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, PERINTHALMANNA,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SALE OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA CO.OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,MALAPPURAM. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,MALAPPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR,MALAPPURAM. 5. THE SUB REGISTRAR,MELATTUR, PERINTHALMANNA,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN FOR R1 SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.S. MOHAMMED HASHIM FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 18265/2009 --------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT. 21-2-2009. EXT.P2 DO. DT. 24-3-2009. EXT.P3 ORDER DT. 2-6-2009. EXT.P4 LETTER DT. 10-6-2009. EXT.P5 ORDER DT. 16-6-2009. EXT.P6 REPRESENTATION DT. 20-6-2009. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF REPORT. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 18265 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 1st December, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner availed of a loan from the Perinthalmanna Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. As security for repayment of the same, the petitioner mortgaged certain properties belonging to the petitioner. Since the petitioner committed default in repayment, that property was brought to sale. The property was sold. Sale certificate was issued. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the authorities under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act for return of the property to the petitioner. The petitioner paid the entire amount and discharged the liability. The sale was set aside by the competent authority. In the meanwhile, the sale certificate had already been submitted before the Sub Registrar for registration under the Indian Registration Act. The Registrar passed Ext. P5 order holding that deficient stamp duty has to be paid on the document. It is under the above circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to call for the records leading to Ext. P5 and quash the same; (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 5th respondent to return the sale certificate (No. P2-2007) to the 1st respondent Bank and to release the same to the petitioner forthwith.” 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. The learned Government Pleader would contend that there is no provision in the Stamp Act or the Registration Act for return of a document submitted for registration, which has been impounded without payment of the deficient stamp duty demanded. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. W.P.C. No. 18265/09 -: 2 :- 4. I am of opinion that once a sale is set aside and the sale certificate is cancelled by the superior authority, that sale certificate ceases to exist. Thereafter, no proceedings under any legislation can be initiated in respect of the sale certificate. No deficient stamp duty can also be demanded in respect of that document insofar as, in the eye of law, that document no longer exists. The Kerala Stamp Act has no independent existence without reference to other law of the land. When in a valid legal proceedings a document has been set aside, simply because that document had already been submitted for registration, the registering authority or the superior authority cannot proceed against that document under the Stamp Act as if that document is still valid, which would amount to negation of the law as per which the document has been cancelled. In the above circumstances, Ext. P5 is quashed. Respondents 4 and 5 are directed to return the sale certificate to the person who has produced the same for registration. It would be open to the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent to get the title deeds in respect of the mortgaged property. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/