High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2018-08-17Writ petition disposed of; court directs verifi...

Ramachandran & Balan v. Sub Registrar Parali; Village Officer Mundoor I; District Registrar General and District Registrar Audit; State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 26407 of 2018

Neutral Citation:,

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Alexander Thomas
Judgment Date: 2018-08-17
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is finally disposed of with directions. The petitioners must present an attested copy of Ext. P-1 and the original Ext. P-1 for verification to the 2nd respondent-Village Officer. The 2nd respondent shall furnish a proper report to the 1st respondent-SRO regarding old survey numbers and the correct re-survey numbers for the property of the 1st petitioner, and prepare a fresh sketch showing exact extent, old survey numbers, and correct re-survey numbers. It is held that the rectification deed, if correcting clerical errors and properly stamped, can be treated as a rectification deed; if the sketch shows excess extent beyond 13.45 ares, the rectification can pertain only to the original extent. Petitioners may produce certified copies of this judgment for guidance. The writ petition stands disposed of with these directions.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of; court directs verification and preparation of a fresh sketch by the Village Officer; rectification to reflect original extent (13.45 ares) and compliance with Sec. 78 fee structure; matter closed with directions for proper rectification and reporting.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ramachandran
Balan

Respondents

Sub Registrar Office, Parali, Palakkad District
Village Officer, Mundoor I, Mundoor Village
District Registrar General and District Registrar Audit, Palakkad
State of Kerala represented by Principal Secretary, Registration Department

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Cibi Thomas

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, Senior Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges the registration of a rectification deed intended to correct clerical errors in a sale deed (Ext. P-1) concerning survey numbers and extent of land in Mundur Village, Palakkad. The petitioners, Ramachandran and Balan, contend they own 13.45 ares (0.1345 ha) and purchased the property via Ext. P-1 dated 13-03-1995 from the vendor (2nd petitioner). After registration, mutation was effected and taxes paid (Ext. P-2). The disputed issue arises from a discrepancy between old survey numbers (234/1, 234/2 etc. or 469/5, 469/6, 469/7 as per Ext. P-1) and the corrected re-survey numbers (469/1, 469/3, 469/4) shown in Ext. P-3 certificate issued by the Village Officer. The petition seeks to register Ext. P-4, a rectification deed, to align survey numbers, arguing registration fee under the Registration Act Sec. 78, particularly Clause 1(s) of Ext. P6, should apply (maximum Rs. 500) since it does not create/transfers rights. The respondents oppose registering Ext. P-4, suggesting stamp duty as conveyance. The court considers that rectification deeds correcting clerical mistakes may be treated as such if the old and new numbers tally with the officer’s certificate; directs verification by the Village Officer, attested copy of Ext. P-1, and a fresh report/sketch, with the writ petition finally disposed of.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 78, Registration Act, 1908 (registration fees for rectification deeds; max Rs. 500)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Rectification deeds correcting clerical errors in original deeds do not by themselves create new rights (Jihas v. Deputy Registrar, 2012 (3) KLT 194).
Rectification under Sec. 78 of the Registration Act is applicable where the deed does not create, transfer, limit, extend, extinguish or record any right or liability; such deeds may attract the same fee as the original document, subject to a maximum of Rs. 500 (Ext. P6, Clause 1(s)).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend they possess 13.45 ares in Mundur Village and that Ext. P-1 sale deed (dated 13-03-1995) accurately describes the property. They argue that Ext. P-3 confirms the corrected survey numbers, and Ext. P-4 seeks to rectify the clerical discrepancy without creating any new rights. They urge that registration under Sec. 78 (table of fees) should apply, with a maximum fee of Rs. 500 under Clause 1(s) of Ext. P6, since the rectification deed is not a conveyance but a correction to reflect the original extent. They request mandamus to register Ext. P-4 on the stated fee and to consider Ext. P5 (their representation) favourably. They emphasize that Ext. P5 and Ext. P6 support their interpretation and that the rectification deed should be treated as such if it merely aligns survey numbers with the officer’s certificate.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contest registration of Ext. P-4, arguing the rectification deed, even if correcting clerical errors, may implicate rights and requires proper stamp duty as a conveyance if it affects title. They rely on Sec. 78 and the table of fees, contending that the process must ensure correctness and legality, with due verification by the Village Officer and SRO. They highlight potential inconsistency: Ext. P3 (13.76 ares) versus Ext. P-1 (13.45 ares) and call for factual verification before any rectification, including cross-checking with certified deeds. The respondents emphasize that the court must avoid creating or transferring rights without proper consideration and stamp duty, and stress that the rectification might involve property rights beyond clerical correction if not properly bounded by the original extent.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Jihas v Deputy Registrar	2012 (3) KLT 194	Positive	The court relies on this decision to hold that a rectification deed correcting clerical errors does not create a new right, provided it is sufficiently stamped.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Ramachandran & Balan v. Sub Registrar Parali; Village Officer Mundoor I; District Registrar General and District Registrar Audit; State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **FRIDAY ,THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 26TH SRAVANA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 26407 of 2018** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 55 YEARS S/O VELAMI MASTER,CHOLAPARMBIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMPURAM P.O.,MANNOOR VILLAGE, PALAKKAD-678 642.** - **2 BALAN S/O TEETHAN, AGED 67 YEARS, PORIYANI THEKKE KALAM, MUNDUR P.O., PALAKKAD DISRICT-678 592.** ## **BY ADV. SRI. CIBI THOMAS** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE SUB REGISTRAR SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, PARALI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 612** - **2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER MUNDOOR I, MUNDOOR VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK, MUNDOOR P.O.PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 592** - **3 THE DISTRICT REGISTARAR GENERAL AND DISTRICT REGISTRAR AUDIT CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD 678 001.** - **4 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SR.G.P . SAIGY JACOB PALATTY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.08.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 26407 of 2018** ## **::2::** ## **J U D G M E N T** The 1[st] petitioner claims to be in absolute ownership and possession of the property having an extent of 13.45 ares (0.1345 hectares) in Mundur Village, Palakkad Revenue District and that the 1[st] petitioner has purchased the property as per Ext.P-1 sale deed dated 13.3.1995 of S.R.O. Parali from the 2[nd] petitioner. That after execution of registration of Ext.P-1 deed, mutation has also been duly effected and the 1[st] petitioner has been remitting the basic tax in respect of the abovesaid property coming to 13.45 ares as discernible from Ext.P-2 tax receipt dated 18.9.2017, it is averred. In Ext.P-1 sale deed, re-survey numbers of the property are shown as 469/5, 469/6 and 469/7. Later, from the Village Officer, it has been found that correct survey numbers pertain to Ext.P-1 property are actually 469/1, 469/3 and 469/4. The 2[nd] respondent has issued Ext.P-3 certificate clarifying the same. The 1[st] petitioner had submitted Ext.P-5 ## **WP(C).No. 26407 of 2018** ## **::3::** representation before the 1[st] respondent-SRO, Parali requesting him to register Ext.P-4 rectification deed so as to correct the survey number shown in Ext.P-1 sale deed to be in consonance with the survey numbers as now shown in Ext.P-3 certificate issued by the 2[nd] respondent-Village Officer. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though Ext.P-4 rectification deed was submitted before the SRO, the said official was not ready to entertain the same stating that the said document is to be registered after paying stamp duty at the existing rate by treating it as a conveyance transaction. Petitioners point out that as per Ext.P-6 table of fees notified under Sec.78 of the Registration Act, 1908, the petitioners need to pay only registration fee subject to a maximum of Rs.500/- as per clause 1(s) of the said table. Clause 1(s) **WP(C).No. 26407 of 2018** **==> picture [37 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** of table of fees prescribed in Sec.78 of the Registration Act, reads as follows: _“I (s) The registration fee for a deed of rectification which does not create, transfer, limit, extend, extinguish or record any right or liability shall be the same as the fee leviable on the original document subject to a maximum of Rs.500.”_ The petitioners would contend that the said refusal on the part of the 1[st] respondent-SRO is arbitrary and illegal, etc. It is in the light of these factual averments, that the instant Writ Petition (Civil) has been filed seeking the following reliefs: _“a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 1[st] Respondent to register Ext.P-4 deed of rectification on receipt of registration fee as provided under Clause 'S” of Ext P6 table._ _b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 1[st] Respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext P5 representation favourably without insisting for registration fee other than what is provided under the Registration Act._ _c) grant such other reliefs prayed for from time to time including cost of these proceedings.”_ 2. Heard Sri.Cibi Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. Re-survey numbers shown in Ext.P-1 sale deed in respect of the property coming to 14.35 **WP(C).No. 26407 of 2018** **==> picture [37 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ares are 469/5, 469/6 and 469/7. In Ext.P-3 certificate issued by the 2[nd] respondent-Village officer, it is certified that re-survey numbers of the said properties are actually 469/1, 469/3 and 469/4. Ext.P-3 certificate dated 12.7.2018 reads as follows: **==> picture [79 x 46] intentionally omitted <==** ## സസക പതത ാ ക്ഷ്യ ശഫീ രസാമചന്ദ്രൻ S/o. ലവലസാമവി മസാസ്റ്റർ ലചസാലപറമവിൽ (HO) കവിഴക്കുമ്പുറത ലദേശത എന്ന ലമൽവവിലസാസതവിൽ സൂചവിപവിച്ചതത ,പറളവി സ റ ഒ യവിലല13-03-1995 ലല 843/1995 നമർ ആധസാരതവിൽ പരസാമർശവിച്ചതസായ സ്ഥലതവിലന്റെ ശരവിയസായ സർലവ്വെ നമറത വവിസഫീർണ്ണവത റഫീസർലവ്വെ റവികസാർഡജ് പ്രകസാരത തസാലഴ പറയത പ്രകസാരമസാലണെന്നജ് സസാകക്ഷ്യലപടുത്തുന. |വവിലല്ലേജജ് മുണ്ടൂർ I ഒട്ടുവവിസഫീർണ്ണത 0.5320 0.1720 0.0800|ലബസാകജ് പഴയ സർലവ്വെ 12 234/1,2 234/2 234/2 കകവശ. വവിസഫീർണ്ണത 0.0431 0. 0384 0.0530|ടവി പവി നമർ 427 1621 1409|റഫീസർലവ്വെ 469/1 469/3 469/4 തരത പുരയവിടത പുരയവിടത പുരയവിടത| |---|---|---|---| ടവി സസാകക്ഷ്യപതത പറളവി സബജ് റജവിസസാർ ഓഫഫീസവിൽ ഹസാജരസാക്കുന്നതവിനജ് ലവണവി അനുവദേവിക്കുന്നതജ്. ഒപജ് വവിലല്ലേജജ് ഓഫഫീസർ മുണ്ടൂർ 1” ## **WP(C).No. 26407 of 2018** ## **::6::** 4. Old survey number and re-survey number of the property coming to 13.45 ares covered by Ext.P-1 sale deed are 234/1, 2 and 234/2. Learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents submits that he has no factual instructions in the matter as to whether re-survey numbers and the old survey numbers in Ext.P-3 certificate pertain to the property covered by Ext.P-1 sale deed and further that going by Ext.P-3(2) sketch produced by the petitioners, the total extent of land is 13.76 ares and that if the petitioners are claiming 13.76 ares, it is more than the total extent of 13.45 ares shown in Ext.P-1 sale deed. Sri.Cibi Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even in Ext.P-4 rectification deed, the total extent of land shown by the 1[st] petitioner is only 13.45 ares which tallies with Ext.P-1 sale deed and that he will get a corrected copy of Ext.P3(2) sketch. Further, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 1[st] **WP(C).No. 26407 of 2018** ## **::7::** petitioner will secure a corrected copy of Ext.P3(2) sketch and that even if the land is in excess of 13.45 ares, he wants title only in respect of the original extent of 13.45 ares covered by Ext.P-1 sale deed. Since the respondents have not ascertained the factual aspects, this Court is not in a position to adjudicate the merits of the matter. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioner will make available an attested copy of Ext.P-1 sale deed before the 2[nd] respondent-Village Officer and also make available the original of Ext.P-1 for verification. After verification of the title deed of the 1[st] petitioner as per Ext.P-1, the 2[nd] respondent-Village Officer will furnish a proper report addressed to the 1[st] respondent-SRO as to the old survey numbers and the correct re-survey numbers pertaining to the property of the 1[st] petitioner coming to 13.45 ares covered by Ext.P-1 sale deed. The 2[nd] respondent will also prepare a fresh sketch of the 1[st] petitioner's property showing its exact extent, ## **WP(C).No. 26407 of 2018** ## **::8::** old survey numbers and correct re-survey numbers, etc. Therefore it is for the petitioners to present a proper deed for rectification of the mistakes in Ext.P-1 sale deed. It has been held by this Court in _**Jihas v Deputy Registrar**_ , reported in 2012 (3) KLT 194, that corrected deed executed to correct any original sale deed if found to be sufficiently stamped, does not by itself create a new right in favour of the vendee. Therefore, if the deed presented by the petitioners is pertaining to correct the clerical mistakes in respect of the survey numbers in Ext.P-1 sale deed it is to be treated as a rectification deed provided the old survey numbers and re-survey numbers tally with the certificate that is to be issued by the Village Officer, in which case the petitioners will have to pay the applicable registration fee in terms of the table of fees under Sec.78 of the Registration Act. However, it is made clear that even if the sketch to be issued by the village **WP(C).No. 26407 of 2018** **==> picture [37 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** officer shows the extent in excess of 13.45 ares, the deed of rectification can pertain only to the original extent as shown in Ext.P-1 sale deed. Petitioners may produce certified copies of this judgment to the 2[nd] respondent-Village Officer and 1[st] respondent-SRO for necessary information and compliance. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of. Sd/- **ALEXANDER THOMAS,** **Judge.** **bkn/-** **WP(C).No. 26407 of 2018** **::10::** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE VERUMPATTOM THEERADHARAM NO.843/1995 DATED 13/03/1995 OF SRO, PARALI.** **EXHIBIT P2** **TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MUNDOOR I, TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEED OF RECTIFICATION DATED 23/07/018 PROPOSED TO BE REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 27/07/2018. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF SRO NO.1112/77.**