IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5631 of 2010(D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. MOOLAKKANDI SURENDRAN, S/O.ANANDAN, AGED 39 YEARS, BUSINESS, CHENOLI HOUSE, P.O.KARAPERAVOOR, PIN -670 072, KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. 2. VALAPPILE VEETTIL RAKESH, S/O.VISWANATHAN THEENDAKKARA, AGED 32 YEARS, MANAGER, KALYANI NILAYAM, P.O.MUNDAYAD, KANNUR-670 599, KERALA STATE. BY ADV. MR.N.NAGARESH MR.K.BABU MR.T.V.VINU RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SUB REGISTRAR, MATTANNUR SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, P.O.MATTANNUR. 2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR KANNUR (GENERAL) OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, P.O.THALASSERY. 3. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.5631/2010-D ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners have approached this Court seeking for a direction to the first respondent to register a rectification deed, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P3. 2. The grievance raised herein is in the following circumstances. The first petitioner was the owner and in possession of 29 ¾ cents of land in Re-survey No.14/2 of Pazhassi amsom, Kayani desom. From the said property, he assigned 15 cents of land to the second petitioner as per Ext.P2 sale deed. 3. After the same was registered, it was found that instead of recording the document as No.901, it was recorded as No.991 and, it was also found that the name of the second petitioner was written as Valappile Veettil Ragesh instead of Valappile Veettil Rakesh. The number 991 is to be corrected as No.901 and, the alphabet 'g' in Ragesh is to be substituted by alphabet 'k'. Accordingly, they prepared a rectification deed. It is the case of the petitioner that the first respondent insisted that the deed W.P.(C). No.5631/2010 -:2:- should be prepared in a stamp paper of Rs.45,000/- and an amount of Rs.7,530/- has to be remitted towards stamp duty. The petitioner contends that no stamp duty has to be paid for registering the rectification deed and only an amount of Rs.100/- has to be paid as registration fee. The petitioner relies upon other documents which were registered without collecting stamp duty. True copies of the said documents, namely, document No.4044/2003, dated 20/11/2003 of S.R.O, Kannur and document No.629/1983, dated 07/04/1983 of S.R.O, Thalassery are produced as Exts.P4 and P5. 4. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that so far the petitioners have not produced the original of Ext.P3 for registration and if it is produced, action will be taken in accordance with law. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the light of Section 23 of the Act, the respondent may now raise an objection with regard to the registration of the same as the period of four months provided therein is over. The document was prepared on 28/10/2009. In that view of the matter, the petitioners will be free to submit another document for registration. If such a document is prepared and produced for registration, the first W.P.(C). No.5631/2010 -:3:- respondent will receive the same and take appropriate action in accordance with law for registering the same. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms