Registering Authority Cannot Demand Stamp Duty To Keep Copy Of Sale Certificate On The File Of 'Book No.1' : SC Upholds Madras HC Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the Madras High Court judgment holding that a registering authority cannot demand stamp duty to keep a copy of a sale certificate on the file of Book No.1 under Section 89 of the Registration Act, 1908.

In this case, the husband of the writ petitioner before the High Court had got a sale certificate was issued in his favour .The same was forwarded to the Registeration authority for making entries in Book-I as contemplated under Section 89 of the Registration Act, 1908. Before th High Court, the writ petitioner contended that the Sale Certificate was presented before the authority only for the purpose of filing it in Book No-I as per Section 89 of the Act and thus it does not require any stamp duty and registration fees.

The Single bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition. The Division Bench of the High Court, dismissing the appeal filed by the Registration authority, upheld the direction issued by the Single bench to keep the sale certificates in Book No.1,  as contemplated under Section 89(2) of the Act.

Refusing to entertain the Special Leave Petition, the Apex Court bench of Justices issue has been repeatedly settled and a consistent view has been followed for the last 150 years, the court added. 

"It is time that the authorities stop filing unnecessary special leave petitions only with the objective of attaining some kind of a final dismissal from this Court every time. Costs this time has been spared but will not be spared the next time", the court said.

In this regard, the court referred to the following judgments:

1. Madras High Court in the Board of Revenue No.2 of 1875 (In Re: Case Referred) dated 19.10.1875 opining that a certificate of sale cannot be regarded as a conveyance subject to stamp duty,
2. Allahabad High Court in Adit Ram v. Masarat-un-Nissa opining that a sale certificate is not an instrument of the kind mentioned in clause (b) of Section 17 of Act III of 1877 and is not compulsorily registrable and
3. Supreme Court in Esjaypee Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. General Manager and Authorised Officer, Canara Bank opining that the mandate of law in terms of Section 17(2)(xii) read with Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908 only required the Authorised Officer of the Bank under the SARFAESI Act to hand over the duly validated Sale Certificate to the Auction Purchase with a copy forwarded to the Registering Authorities to be filed in Book I as per Section 89 of the Registration Act and
4. Supreme Court in M.A. No.19262/2021 in SLP(C) No.29752/2019 dated 29.10.2021 opining that once a direction is issued for the duly validated certificate to be issued to the auction purchaser with a copy forwarded to the registering authorities to be filed in Book I as per Section 89 of the Registration Act, it has the same effect as registration and obviates the requirement of any further action

Case details

 Inspector General of Registration vs G.Madhurambal | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 969 | SLP(C) 16949/2022 | 11 Nov 2022 | Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S. Oka

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, AAG Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Ms. Devyani Gupta, Adv. Mr. P. Shankar, Adv. Ms. Shivani Jena, Adv. Mr. Naman Dwivedi, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. K. V. Viswanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. A. Radhakrishnan, AOR Mr. P. krishnan, Adv. Ms. Sri Ruma Sarasani, Adv. 

Headnotes

Registration Act, 1908 ; Section 89 - SLP against Madras High Court judgment holding that a registering authority cannot demand stamp duty to keep a copy of a sale certificate on the file of Book No.1 - Dismissed - Issue has been repeatedly settled and a consistent view has been followed for the last 150 years.

Practice and Procedure - It is time that the authorities stop filing unnecessary special leave petitions only with the objective of attaining some kind of a final dismissal from this Court every time.

Click here to Read/Download Order