IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22150 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. MIDHUN SUNNY, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. SUNNY, EDATTUKARAN HOUSE, PALLIKKUNNU DESOM, VARANTHARAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. MIDHULA SUNNY, AGED 17, D/O. SUNNY, REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN AND FATHER SRI.SUNNY, EDATTUKARAN HOUSE, PALLIKKUNNU DESOM, VARANTHARAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN SRI.S.SUJITH SRI.V.A.SASIDHARAN SRI.JOSEPH ALBIN NEDUNTHALLY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, TRICHUR. 2. SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRY, KODALI, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TRICHUR. 4. SABU SEBASTIAN, AGED 36, S/O. PALAMATTOM SEBASTIAN, VARANTHARAPPILLY P.O., TRICHUR DISTRICT. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 22150 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 15th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioners executed an agreement for sale dated 3-3-2010 with a prospective vendor of the properties mentioned in Ext. P1. Consideration for the sale has been fixed therein. The petitioners now want to execute a sale deed. But the petitioners now apprehend that when the sale deed is presented for registration, the Sub Registrar may insist on payment of stamp duty on the fair value fixed for the property. The petitioners' contention is that the fair value was fixed for the property by Ext. P5 notification published in the Gazettee dated 6-3-2010. Therefore, the fair value has come into force only from 6-3-2010. According to the petitioners, the agreement for sale between the petitioners and their vendors cannot be affected by Ext. P5 fair value fixed insofar as Ext. P1 agreement for sale has been executed prior to Ext. P5 notification fixing the fair value. The petitioners therefore seek the following reliefs: “i. Call for the records relating to Exts.P 1 to P5; ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing respondents 1 and 2 to register the sale deed executed by respondents no. 4 in favour of the petitioners in respect of the property extending to 1.6297 Hector in sy. no. 338 and 358 of Varantharappilly village on receipt of stamp duty as per the value of the property fixed in Ext. P1; iii. Issue appropriate writ or order holding that Ext. P5 notification published on 6.3.2010 fixing the fair value is not applicable to the registration of sale deed to be executed in pursuance of Ext. P1 sale agreement dated 3.3.2010; iv. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash Ext. P5 order fixing the fair value as far as the property mentioned in Ext. P1 agreement is concerned.” 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. The petitioners are yet to get the sale deed executed in their favour in respect of the property. Ext. P1 is only an agreement for sale dated 3.3.2010. It is settled law that stamp duty on a document is payable as on the date of its execution. Insofar as the petitioners have not got the sale deed executed in their favour, they are bound to pay stamp duty on the basis of the law prevailing as on the date of execution of the sale deed, which can only be subsequent to Ext. P5 insofar as no sale deed has yet been executed. As the law presently stands, in view of the amendment made to the Kerala Stamp Act, stamp duty is payable at the rate prescribed in Article 22 of the Schedule to the Stamp Act on the fair value fixed by the Government for that property or the consideration agreed to between the parties, whichever is higher. That being so, if the petitioners are to get the sale deed executed in their favour, they are bound to pay stamp duty in accordance with the amended provision, which insisted on payment of stamp duty on the fair value fixed by the Government on the property. That being so, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.