2022 (7) TMI 1493 - HC - Indian Laws

Filing of sale certificates in Book No. 1 as per Section 89(2) or 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908 - sale certificates were not issued by the Revenue officer, yet, a direction for filing a copy in Book No. 1 has been given - HELD THAT - Section 89 of the Act of 1908 provides for sending copies of certain orders, certificates and instruments to the registering officers. The purpose of Section 89 of the Act of 1908 is different than as understood by the appellants. It is not for registration of document requiring stamp duty and keeping a copy of the sale certificate on the file of Book No. 1. The document therein is not presented by the purchaser, but sent by the court or the Revenue Officer. The judgment in N. NARESH KUMAR VERSUS THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, CHENNAI AND THE SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, TRICHY 2018 (8) TMI 2140 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , makes it clear that it does not amount to registration, rather if the document is to be used for sale or any other purpose, stamp duty is to be paid for registration of the document at that stage. Section 17(2)(xii) of the Act of 1908 excluded document from compulsory registration if the certificate of sale is granted to the purchaser by the Civil or Revenue Officer. In the case of B. ARVIND KUMAR VERSUS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ORS. 2007 (5) TMI 657 - SUPREME COURT , the Apex Court thus gave a reference of Section 17(2)(xii) of the Act of 1908 to indicate that a sale certificate does not require compulsory registration and for that no separate deed is to be executed. The writ petitions were filed when the sale certificate sent to the registering officer was not filed in Book No. 1 on the ground that stamp duty has not been paid. The appellants have failed to understand the import of Sections 17(2)(xii) and 89 of the Act of 1908, which does not require registration of sale certificate, but for filing a copy in Book No. 1. At this stage, it is necessary to clarify that the court granting certificate of sale would fall under Section 89(2) of the Act of 1908, while if it is granted by the Revenue officer, it would be under Section 89(4) of the Act of 1908 and the case on hand would fall under Section 89(2) and not under Section 89(4) of the Act of 1908. The action of the appellants to demand stamp duty to keep a copy of the sale certificate on the file of Book No. 1 is going against the statutory mandate and the law enunciated by the Apex Court and this Court. The writ appellants have even ignored Section 17(2)(xii) which excludes sale certificate from compulsory registration if granted by the Civil or Revenue officer. In a case where certificate is granted by the Civil officer apart from Revenue Officer, registration would not be compulsory, thus till it is not presented for registration, the question of stamp duty would not arise. It would be true that as per Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 such document would not be admissible in evidence. There are no merit in the writ appeals and are dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 89(2) and 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908.
2. Requirement of stamp duty for filing sale certificates in Book No. 1.
3. Distinction between registration of documents and filing of sale certificates.
4. Interpretation of Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act, 1908.
5. Legal precedents relevant to the registration and filing of sale certificates.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 89(2) and 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908:
The primary issue was whether Section 89(2) or 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908 applied to the case. The appellants argued that Section 89(4) applies only when the sale certificate is issued by a Revenue officer, while in this case, the sale certificates were not issued by a Revenue officer. The court clarified that the case falls under Section 89(2) since the sale certificates were issued by the court, not a Revenue officer. The court emphasized that Section 89(2) mandates that a copy of the sale certificate issued by a court must be filed in Book No. 1 by the registering officer.

2. Requirement of Stamp Duty for Filing Sale Certificates in Book No. 1:
The appellants contended that without the payment of stamp duty, the sale certificates could not be filed in Book No. 1. The court rejected this argument, stating that the filing of sale certificates under Section 89(2) does not require the payment of stamp duty. The court noted that the sale certificates were not presented by the purchaser for registration but were sent by the court, which does not necessitate stamp duty at this stage.

3. Distinction Between Registration of Documents and Filing of Sale Certificates:
The court highlighted the confusion of the appellants in distinguishing between the registration of documents and the filing of sale certificates. It clarified that the filing of a sale certificate in Book No. 1 under Section 89(2) is not equivalent to the registration of a document, which would require stamp duty. The court referred to the judgment in N. Naresh Kumar vs. The Inspector General of Registration, which established that the Sub Registrar is only required to file a copy of the sale certificate in Book No. 1 and not to register it.

4. Interpretation of Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act, 1908:
The court referred to Section 17(2)(xii), which excludes sale certificates issued by a Civil or Revenue officer from compulsory registration. It emphasized that a sale certificate issued by the court does not require registration and therefore does not necessitate stamp duty unless the document is used for purposes such as selling the property. This interpretation was supported by the Supreme Court's judgment in B. Arvind Kumar v. Government of India, which held that a sale certificate does not require compulsory registration.

5. Legal Precedents Relevant to the Registration and Filing of Sale Certificates:
The court relied on several legal precedents to support its judgment. It cited the case of B. Arvind Kumar v. Government of India, where the Supreme Court held that a sale certificate issued following a public auction does not require compulsory registration. The court also referred to the judgment in Som Dev v. Rati Ram, which reiterated that sale certificates are not documents that need compulsory registration. Additionally, the court mentioned Rule 200(1) of the Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, which aligns with the provisions of Section 89(2).

Conclusion:
The court found no merit in the appellants' arguments and upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge, directing the writ appellants to file the sale certificates in Book No. 1 as per Section 89(2) of the Registration Act, 1908. The appeals were dismissed, and the court clarified that the requirement of stamp duty does not arise at the stage of filing the sale certificates in Book No. 1.