WA/3265/2026 of R.Lillis Mary Vs The Sub- Registrar, Periamet on 2 November 2026

Judgment

(Delivered by S.M.Subramaniam, J.) Under assail is the writ order dated 20.04.2026 passed in W.P.No.14546 of 2026. Writ Petitioners are the appellants before this Court instituted the present Intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent. The appellants challenged the notice issued by the Registering Authority/Sub-Registrar demanding deficit stamp duty in respect of the documents presented for registration.

2. The appellants presented a sale deed for registration. The document was executed by the respective parties before the Registering Officer and Document No.3382 of 2025 was assigned. During the field inspection, the Sub-Registrar found that the stamp duty paid by the presenter of the document was not in consonance with the Indian Stamp Act and accordingly issued a demand notice to pay the deficit stamp duty in respect of the document registered. The appellants preferred a writ petition. The Writ Court, while setting aside the demand notice dated 09.03.2026, permitted the authority to initiate proceedings against the appellants under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act in respect of the sale deed presented for registration. Further, the Writ Court allowed the appellants to raise their objections before the competent authority while dealing with the issues under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that the Writ Court set aside the demand notice dated 09.03.2026. Therefore allowing the authority to initiate proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act is unnecessary. Once the demand letter is quashed, question of referring the document under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act would not arise at all and therefore, the writ order is contradictory and is liable to be assailed.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellants have filed another writ petition in W.P.No.20020 of 2026 challenging the proceedings issued by the registering officer referring the document for adjudication of stamp duty under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act.

5. The learned Special Government Pleader would oppose by stating that during the field inspection, the registering authority found that the stamp duty paid was improper, lesser than the value and accordingly raised a demand. Instead of adjudicating the issue before the Collector (Stamps) under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. Quashing of the demand notice would pave the way for the Collector (Stamps) to adjudicate the issues afresh and therefore, the writ order cannot be construed as self- contradictory. Only if the demand notice is set aside, the authority under Section 47-A will be in a position to adjudicate the issues. Thus, the grounds raised by the appellants are untenable.

6. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the parties to the lis on hand.

7. Though the facts appear to be simple, it requires examination in the context of the provisions of the Registration Act, the Indian Stamp Act and the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968.

8. The issues to be considered are:

(a) When the process of registration is to be treated as complete and when the document registered becomes operative?

(b) After registration of a document by the registering officer, whether he is empowered to raise a demand regarding deficit stamp duty to be paid by the presenter of the document?

(c) Whether the time limit of 15 days prescribed under the Rules to refer a document under Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act is directory or mandatory?.

9. Section 17 of the Registration Act stipulates documents of which registration is compulsory. Any document registered under Section 17 is to be construed as mere registration. In corollary, mere registration of a document does not confer any right or title on a person over the property and pertinently, the process of registration must be completed in all respects as contemplated under the provisions of the Registration Act and only after return of the document to the presenter of the document or his representative, the registered document becomes operative and thereafter any right whatsoever conferred under the document may be claimed.

10. Therefore, a distinction is to be drawn regarding presentation of a document for registration, document registered, number assigned and return of document to the parties concerned. The procedures contemplated under the Registration Act and the Rules, in unambiguous terms stipulate that a document presented and executed before the registering officer will be registered and document number will be assigned. After registering document, the Act contemplates conduct of field inspection by the registering officer and formalities to be observed. On completion of field inspection and the procedures, the registered document will be ready for return to the party concerned. Until the documents are returned to the parties, it is to be construed that the document is in the process of registration. Thus, “registration of a document is one aspect of the matter and completion of registration under the provisions of the Registration Act is another aspect”. It would be insufficient if a document is merely registered. Mere registration would not confer any right. After completion of the procedures as contemplated under the Act and return of document, it will become operative and the person concerned may claim right conferred under the document.

11. In this regard, Section 60 of the Registration Act speaks about the certificate of registration. Sub-section (1) to Section 60 stipulates that, “after such of the provisions of Sections 34, 35, 58 and 59 as apply to any document presented for registration have been complied with, the registering officer shall endorse thereon a certificate containing the word “registered” together with the number and page of the book in which the true copy of the document has been filed”. Pertinently, Sub-section (2) to Section 60 denotes that, “such certificate shall be signed, sealed and dated by the registering officer, and shall then be admissible for the purpose of proving that the document has been duly registered in manner provided by this Act and that the facts mentioned in the endorsements referred to in Section 59 have occurred as therein mentioned.” Therefore, under sub-section (1), a certificate of registration is to be made in the book as “registered” and thereafter the certificate shall be signed, sealed and dated by the registering officer. Such certificate should state that the document has been duly registered in the manner provided under the Registration Act.

12. Section 61 contemplates endorsements and certificate to be copied and document returned. Sub-section (1) to Section 61 reads as follows: “The endorsements and certificate referred to and mentioned in Sections 59 and 60 shall thereupon be copied into the Register-book and the copy of the map or plan (if any) mentioned in Section 21 shall be filed in Book No.1”.

13. Sub-section (2) to Section 61 reads as follows: “The registration of the document shall thereupon be deemed complete, and the document shall then be returned to the person, who presented the same for registration, or to such other person (if any) as he has nominated in writing in that behalf on the receipt mentioned in Section 52”.

14. Therefore, when a document is duly registered and adjudicated for additional stamp duty and registration charges is complete, then alone the document is eligible to be returned to the presenter of the document. Thus, the registration is completed within the meaning and under the provisions of the Registration Act, if the document is registered and returned to the presenter after completing the procedures as contemplated under the Act. Thus, registration of a document and assigning a document number cannot be construed as completion of registration within the meaning and under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. Precisely, the procedures contemplated under Sections 60 and 61 of the Registration Act are to be complied with and the document must be ready for return to the presenter of the document.

15. Now let us consider Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Sub-section (1) to Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act reads as follows: “If the registering officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act XVI of 1908), while registering any instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement has reason to believe that the market value of the property of which is the subject matter of conveyance, exchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may, after registering such instrument, refer the same to the Collector for determination of market value of such property and the stamp duty payable thereon.”

16. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the word employed under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act is “registered”. Therefore, in the present case, the document has been executed between the parties and registered by the registering officer and document number has been assigned. Therefore, as per Rule 3(5) of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, demand made is time-barred. Thus, the reference made by the Writ Court to adjudicate the issues under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act is not justifiable.

17. To answer the argument made on behalf of the appellant,

Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act stipulates that while registering an instrument of conveyance, if the document has not been truly set forth in the instrument, the registering officer may, after registering such instrument, refer the same to the Collector for determination of market value. A close and careful reading of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act would amplify that the registering officer under the Registration Act, while registering any instrument of conveyance, found and has reason to believe that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may refer the document to the Collector (Stamps) for determination of market value. Therefore, Section 47-A does not speak about the completion of registration nor the word “registered” has been employed. Even presuming that the word “registered” has been employed in the Indian Stamp Act, then also it is to be construed that the registration completed in all respects under the provisions of the Registration Act alone to be taken as “document registered”. In either of the circumstances i.e., process of registration or mere registration or assigning of document number, per se would not be a ground to form an opinion that the registration of a document is completed in all respects under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. The facts of the present case are that the document is executed and registered, but the certificate of registration has not been issued nor the procedure contemplated under Section 61 has been completed. Therefore, the document cannot be said to be “registered” under the provisions of the Registration Act. But it is to be construed as if the document is in the process of registration. Therefore, at any time during the process of registration, the registering officer, if he has reason to believe that the market value of the property of which is the subject matter of conveyance has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may refer the same to the Collector (Stamps). Section 47-A(1) states that the registering officer, after registering the document, may refer the document under Section 47-A for adjudication before the Collector (Stamps). Therefore, registration indicated under Section 47-A is to be construed as mere registration and cannot be construed as the document registered or the registration having been completed in all respects under the provisions of the Registration Act.

18. Coming to the prescription of timeline for initiation of action under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, let us now examine Rule

3(5) of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968. Rule 3(5) stipulates that “the registering officer shall refer an instrument under Section 47-A to the Collector within 15 days from the registration of such instrument”. The Rule contemplates “registration”. Thus, the registration under the Rule would indicate that before completion of the requirements under Sections 60 or 61 of the Registration Act, any document may be referred by the registering officer for adjudication of market value under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, since the registration has not been completed in all respects under the Registration Act. That apart, the timeline prescribed under the Rules cannot be construed as mandatory and to be held as directory. In this regard, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) vs. Kanchana1 considered the legal principles. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted hereunder:

7. Again a dispute arises, whether the time limit of 15 days for making reference made under Rules are mandatory or directory. In this context, the Hon’ble 12024 MHC 2243

Supreme Court of India held in the case of Inspector General of Registration, Tamil Nadu and others vs. K.Baskaran reported in (2020) 14 SCC 345 as follows: “32. We, therefore, hold the fixation of timeline of three months in Rule 7 to be purely directory. In the premises, the conclusion by the High Court holding the said provision to be mandatory is set aside, and no benefit on that ground can accrue to the respondents. 33 to 46….....

47. There is nothing in the scheme of the Act which purports to restrict the exercise of suo motu power under Section 47~A, and confines it to cases where knowledge of any illegality or infirmity in the proceedings undertaken by the subordinate officers must be gathered from sources other than through a pending appeal. Unless the statute expressly or even by necessary implication restricts the exercise of power, there would be no occasion to read into the power, any other limitations. The High Court has not found the exercise of power to be invalid on any count, nor was any such submission advanced before the High Court. The High Court had simple gone on the existence of power rather than on the exercise of power. It is not as if the assessment made by the appellate authority was either opposed to principles of natural justice, or was so palpably incorrect, that it could never be sustained. In our view, the High Court completely erred in setting aside the exercise of power undertaken by the authority concerned. The exercise of power was definitely designed to obviate an obvious illegality and prejudice to the interest of the Revenue. The exercise was, thus, absolutely correct, and there was no occasion to set aside the orders passed in pursuance thereof. We, therefore, answer question 3 accordingly.

9. The Division Bench of this Court, in the case of The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) and another Vs. M.Alfred and others reported in 2017 (2) CWC 896, interpreted the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and Registration Act and held that the return of instrument by the Registering Authority, if a reference is made cannot be claimed as a right. Only after disposal of the proceedings under Section 47~A, such right can be claimed in the manner contemplated under the Act and Rules. Regarding the time limit of 15 days also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that it is only directory and not mandatory.

19. In view of the discussions made in the aforementioned paragraphs, this Court is of the considered view that mere execution by the parties, registration of a document and assigning of document number cannot be construed as “registration completed” under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. The registration completes in all respects if the mandatory procedures contemplated under Section 61 of the Act have been complied with and the document is made ready for return to the presenter of the document. Only after return of the document, the right will accrue to the parties and till such time, it is to be treated as if the process of registration is in progress and not to be treated as “registration completed”.

20. Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, in an unambiguous terms, stipulates that the registering officer, after registering the document also is empowered to refer the matter to the Collector (Stamps) for adjudication under Section 47-A of the Act. Therefore, the process of registration would be sufficient for referring the document for adjudication. When the matter is referred for adjudication of stamp duty under Section 47-A of the Act, then also it is to be construed as if the document has not been registered in all respects and to be treated as a pending document. Thus, no right will accrue to the parties.

21. Regarding the time limit of 15 days prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, the time limit is to be construed as directory and not mandatory.

22. Accordingly, the writ order impugned dated 20.04.2026 passed in W.P.No.14546 of 2026 is set aside. However, the appellants are at liberty to participate in the process of adjudication already commenced under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act and defend their case in the manner known to law.

23. With these observations, the Writ Appeal stands allowed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (R.R.V.,J.) 26-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No cse

To The Sub- Registrar, Periamet, 1103, EVR Periyar Salai, Chennai -600 003.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN, J. cse WA.No.3265 of 2026 26-10-2026