IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 30823 of 2008(T) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ RAHIM, S/O. MUHAMMED, CHIRAPPULLY HOUSE, RAYONPURAM, PERUMBAVOOR 683 543. BY ADVS. MR.PHILIP T.VARGHESE, MR.THOMAS T.VARGHESE. RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER FOR LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033,. 2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), ERNAKULAM 682 016. 3. THE SUB REGISTRAR, PERUMBAVOOR. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. M.A. ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.30823/2008 T APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF ORDER NO.INS(2)1599 DTD. 4/4/2006 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF ORDER NO.LR(A)3-39751/2007 DTD. 31/12/2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF ORDER NO.INS(2)1599/05 DTD. 4/10/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss V.GIRI, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.30823 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner presented a sale deed executed in his favour for registration before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent felt that the document is insufficiently stamped and therefore, referred the same to the 2nd respondent District Registrar for assessment of stamp duty to be levied from the petitioner. The 3rd respondent proceeded to pass Ext.P1 order finding that though the document is stated to have been executed on 31.3.2005, a portion of the sale consideration is seen to have been made by means of two cheques, which were actually due for payment only on 17.6.2005 and therefore, there are materials to arrive at a conclusion that the document was executed subsequent to 31.3.2005 and the date 31.3.2005 is shown only for the W.P.(C).No.30823 of 2008 :: 2 :: purpose of saving the transaction from the enhanced stamp duty that came into force on 1.4.2005. The view taken in this regard in Ext.P1 was affirmed by the statutory appellate authority in Ext.P2. The same have been challenged in this writ petition. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the document was engrossed on stamp paper, which bears the date 31.3.2005. The parties to the document affirm that they have executed the same on 31.3.2005. A portion of the consideration was paid by cheque dated 17.6.2005. There is no material to conclude that the execution of the document was done later. Therefore, the document should have been taken as executed on 31.3.2005 itself. 4. Learned Government Pleader points out from the files and with reference to the copy of the W.P.(C).No.30823 of 2008 :: 3 :: document that, there is no recital in the document regarding payment of consideration to show that a part of the consideration is being made and balance by means of a post dated cheque dated 17.6.2005. More importantly, the document, in spite of the fact that they are claimed to have executed it on 31.3.2005, was actually presented for registration only on 17.6.2005, significantly the date which the post dated cheques bore. This is a clear indication that the transaction was actually effected only on 17.6.2005 and not on 31.3.2005. 5. I find considerable force in the submission of the learned Government Pleader. May be, a portion of the consideration payable for the transaction could actually be made by means of post dated cheque, but it is handed over on the date of the transaction. May be, a portion of the consideration is reserved for payment later. These are matters which the vendor and vendee can W.P.(C).No.30823 of 2008 :: 4 :: legitimately agree on. But, when the consideration is stated to have been made by the vendee to the vendor contemporaneously and part of the same is stated to be paid over by means of two cheques which are post dated, in all probabilities, the date which the cheques bore and the fact that they are post dated cheques and nevertheless are being handed over on the date of transaction and so acknowledged by the vendor should specifically be reflected in the recitals in the document. More significantly, in my view, the date on which the document was actually presented for registration, on 17.6.2005, significantly coincides with the date when the cheques were presented for encashment. These aspects have been rightly appreciated by the authorities to come to the conclusion that the document in question was not actually executed on 31.3.2005 and if that be so, it was inadequately stamped in terms of the provisions of the statute. W.P.(C).No.30823 of 2008 :: 5 :: The legal and factual aspects have been correctly appreciated by the authorities and I do not find any reason to interfere with Exts.P1 and P2. Writ petition is bereft of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//