IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2011 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1933 WA.No. 77 of 2011() ------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.31431/2010 Dated 15/12/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN WPC -------------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, DISTRICT REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, ERNAKULAM - 682016. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001. BY MS.D.MEERA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER IN WPC -------------------------------- MR.P.A.JIHAS, S/O.P.K.ABDUL RAHIMAN, C.C.NO.35/423-B, JEWEL NEST, EROOR VASUDEV ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, PALARIVATTOM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 025. ADV. SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag.CJ. & P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. .................................................................... W.A. No.77 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 28th day of October, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, Ag.CJ. This Writ Appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing the Sub Registrar to register the correction deed in terms of respondent's request without payment of stamp duty. 2. We have heard learned Government Pleader for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The respondent, a builder, sold a flat in the first floor, bearing No.1, to a person and executed sale deed. However, later, the respondent presented another document styling it as correction document, whereunder the description and identity of the property sold was changed into flat No.1 in 11th floor. The Registrar declined to register the document because the correction deed itself was produced after 2½ years of execution of sale deed. However, when Registrar's order W.A.No.77/2011 2 was challenged before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge accepted the claim of the respondent and allowed correction deed to be registered without stamp duty. It is against this judgment of the learned Single Judge the State has filed this Writ Appeal. 4. During hearing learned Government Pleader pointed out that when the entire description of the property is changed, the transaction of sale becomes a different one and so much so through the correction deed, another property cannot be sold in the place of the property first sold for which alone stamp duty was paid. We are unable to accept the contention of the respondent that what happened in the original sale deed is only a mistake with regard to the identity of the property, particularly in regard to number. This is because it is specifically written in words in the sale deed that the flat sold was in the 1st floor and in the correction deed the flat proposed to be sold is in the 11th floor. In our view, this is nothing but a rearrangement between the same parties W.A.No.77/2011 3 changing the first floor flat initially sold later to the 11th floor flat. So much so, the Sub Registrar rightly declined to register the document as correction deed. However, we feel on equitable consideration, the respondent can be given rabate of stamp duty when the very same flat (flat No.1 in the first floor) is sold later by him. This Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed directing the respondent to pay full stamp duty and registration fee for sale of flat No.I in the 11th floor. However, there will be direction to the Sub Registrar to allow the petitioner to execute a cancellation deed without stamp duty for flat No.1 in the first floor leaving it open to him to execute sale deed as and when the said flat is sold by taking rebate of stamp duty paid on the cancelled deed. The Registrar will issue a credit note or other certificate entitling the respondent to take credit of the stamp duty paid on the cancelled deed only against sale of the very same first-floor flat as and when sold. Therefore, this would mean that when the said flat is resold, the respondent needs W.A.No.77/2011 4 to pay only the differential duty i.e. the duty payable over and above the credit granted by the Sub Registrar as directed above. This Writ Appeal is allowed as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) jg