IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2010 / 16TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20190 of 2010(W) PETITIONER(S): 1. THRESIAMMA GEORGE, W/O.LATE A.J.GEORGE, 71 YEARS OF AGE, ARIASSERY HOUSE, NEAR KOLOTHUMKADAVU, VAIKOM KARA, VAIKOM NADUMALA VILLAGE, VAIKOM.P.O. 686 141. 2. JOSEPH GEORGE, S/O.LATE A.J.GEORGE, 51 YEARS OF AGE, ARIASSERY HOUSE, NEAR KOLOTHUMKADAVU, VAIKOM KARA, VAIKOM NADUMALA VILLAGE, VAIKOM.P.O. 686 141. 3. ALICE MATHEW, W/O.MATHEW, 48 YEARS OF AGE, KAMMATHURUTHEL, KADUTHURUTHY.P.O, VAIKOM THALUK. 4. GEORGE GEORGE, S/O.LATE A.J.GEORGE, 45 YEARS OF AGE, ARIASSERY HOUSE, NEAR KOLOTHUMKADAVU, VAIKOM KARA, VAIKOM NADUMALA VILLAGE, VAIKOM.P.O,686 141. BY ADV. SRI.MANUEL KACHIRAMATTAM SMT.MERRY GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001. 2. DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, KOTTAYAM. 686 001. 3. SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, THALAYOLAPARAMBU, KOTTAYAM. 686 002. 4. SHOBHA KUNJAPPAN, W/O.KUNJAPPAN, CHAKKIAMURI, PUTHUVIPE.P.O, VIPINE VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. 673 576, GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 20190 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 7th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T Petitioners are legal heirs of late A. J. George who instituted O.S.No. 143/1996 before the Sub Court, Pala against the 4th respondent herein. The suit was one for specific performance of a contract for sale in respect of certain properties or in the alternative for realisation of damages. The suit was ultimately decreed and the plaintiff was directed to deposit Rs. 1,09,000/- towards the consideration of the sale within two weeks. The defendant, who is the 4th respondent herein, was directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within one month from the date of receipt of the notice of deposit. The plaintiff remitted the amount of Rs. 1,09,000/- on 14-7-1997. But the 4th respondent filed A.S.No. 81/1998 before this Court against Ext. P1 decree. When the same came up for hearing on 11-2-2010, the parties settled the matter between themselves. The parties agreed that half of the properties shall be sold to the petitioners herein. Accordingly, for the proportionate sale consideration, a sale deed was executed by the 4th respondent in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners presented the same before the 3rd respondent for registration. But, the 3rd respondent returned the same as per Ext. P4 stating that the presenter has refused to remit the prescribed registration fee. Against Ext. P4, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent dismissed the appeal by observing that the petitioners are to remit the registration fee on the basis of the fair value fixed by the Government for the property as per the amended provisions of the Kerala Stamp Act. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Call for the records relating to the issuance of Ext. P4 W.P.C. No. 20190/2010 -: 2 :- proceedings and Ext. P6 order by the 3rd and 2nd respondents and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to register Ext. P3 sale deed by levying stamp duty and fix registration fees on the basis of actual sale consideration made by the petitioners as per Ext. P2 judgment.” 2. The petitioners' contention is that the amendment is not applicable to the sale proceedings because the O.S was decreed as early as in 1997 at which time, the amendment of the Stamp Act directing payment of stamp duty and registration fee on the fair value had not been brought into force. Further, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, stamp duty is payable only on the actual consideration payable for the same, which, in this case, is as per the compromise decree of this Court in A.S.No. 81/1998. 3. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader would contend that the stamp duty payable on an instrument is as on the date of execution of the instrument and not as on a day prior to the same. He further submits that as on the date of execution of the sale deed, the amendment had already been brought into force. He points out that as per Article 22 of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act, stamp duty payable on a conveyance is the stamp duty at the rate stipulated therein on the fair value of the land or the amount or value of the consideration for such conveyance, whichever is higher. Therefore, according to the learned Government Pleader, the petitioner is liable to pay stamp duty as also registration fee on the fair value fixed for the land. The learned Government Pleader submits that for this purpose, fair value has already been fixed by the Government, which is higher than the consideration. Therefore, the petitioners are bound to pay the stamp duty on the sale deed in question at the appropriate rate on the fair value of the land, is his contention. W.P.C. No. 20190/2010 -: 3 :- 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. The amended Article 22 of Schedule I to the Stamp Act reads thus: “22. Conveyance as defined by S. 2(d), not being a transfer charged or exempted under No. 55 of immovable property situated,- (i) within the Municipalities/ Eight rupees for every rupee Township/Cantonments 100 or part thereof of the fair other than Corporation value of the land or the amount or value of the consideration for such conveyance, whichever is higher.” (underlining supplied) As is clear therefrom, the stamp duty is to be calculated on the fair value of the land or the amount or value of the consideration for such conveyance, whichever is higher. The petitioners could not dispute the fact that fair value has been fixed for this purpose. It is an admitted fact that consideration shown in the sale deed is less than the fair value so fixed. That being so, going by the provisions of the Kerala Stamp Act, the petitioners are liable to pay stamp duty on the fair value fixed for the land and not the consideration included in the sale deed. That being so, the petitioners are liable to pay stamp duty on the fair value. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.