IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 21715 of 2008(I) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SR.SUSAN PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR, M.S.M.I. PROVINCIAL HOUSE PAROPPADY-MARYKUNNU P.O. KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR GENERAL MALAPPURAM 2. THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, WANDOOR 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, WANDOOR 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. I.V. PREMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P(C)No.21715 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 18th day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner purchased 64 cents of property by Ext.P1 sale deed. Since there was an omission in showing one survey Sub-division number in the schedule of the property in Ext.P1, Ext.P2 rectification deed was presented for registration for correction of the omission. When the same was presented for registration, the petitioner was directed to remit an amount of Rs.8005/- as registration fee for the rectification deed, which according to the petitioner was not payable for a rectification deed. Thereafter the petitioner was served with Ext.P5 order stating that Ext.P2 has to be registered as a sale deed and for the same, the petitioner should pay additional stamp duty amounting to Rs. 40,000/-. The petitioner's contention is that as far as there is a specific entry in the Kerala Stamp Act in respect of rectification deed, the petitioner cannot be saddled with the liability to pay the stamp duty on Ext.P2 as a sale deed, as demanded by the respondents. The petitioner's contention is that the property has already been sold by Ext.P1 sale deed, in respect of which there cannot be any dispute. In W.P(C)No.21715 of 2008 - 2 - Ext.P1 the total extent of property was shown in one survey Sub-division whereas the same extent of property actually comprises in two survey Sub-division numbers which mistake is sought to be corrected by Ext.P2. By Ext.P2 no title to any additional property is sought to be conveyed is the contention raised by the petitioner. 2. The learned Government Pleader would submit that since there is a change in not only the survey number but also in the boundaries, this can only by regarded as sale deed and not a rectification deed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no change of boundaries and in Ext.P2 the boundaries of the same property has only been more elaborately made clear which does not alter the character of the sale and the rectification deeds. 3. Having heard both sides, despite the discrepancies pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, I do not think that Ext.P2 document can be regarded as a sale deed. It cannot be disputed that the property involved in Exts.P1 and P2 is the same. What is sought to be done is correction of the survey number by incorporating an additional Sub-division number also and more clearly defining the one of the W.P(C)No.21715 of 2008 - 3 - boundaries. The total extent of the land and identity of the property remains the same. Therefore if the petitioner re-presents Ext.P2 rectification deed, the 2nd respondent shall register the same as a rectification deed and not as a sale deed. For this purpose, Ext.P5 is quashed. As far as prayer for refund of the registration fee paid is concerned, it would be open to the petitioner to file an application for refund before the proper authority, which shall be considered in the light of the findings in this judgment and according to law. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs