R.Lillis Mary vs The Sub- Registrar, Periamet
- Court
- Madras High Court
2026:MHC:4445
WA.No.3265 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN
WA.No.3265 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012230142026}
1. R.Lillis Mary
2. R.Ashwini
3. Aakash Johannes Russell
..Appellants
Vs
The Sub- Registrar, Periamet
1103, EVR Periyar Salai,
Chennai -600 003.
..Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set
aside the order dated 20.04.2026 of the learned judge in WP.No.14546
of 2026 on the file of this Court.
For Appellants: Mr.A.V.Arun
For Respondent: Mr.Dominic S.David
Special Government Pleader
__________
Page 1 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:44 pm )
2026:MHC:4445
WA.No.3265 of 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
__________
Page 2 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:44 pm )
2026:MHC:4445
WA.No.3265 of 2026
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.
__________
Page 3 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:44 pm )
2026:MHC:4445
WA.No.3265 of 2026
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.
__________
Page 4 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:44 pm )
2026:MHC:4445
WA.No.3265 of 2026
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
__________
Page 5 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:44 pm )
2026:MHC:4445
WA.No.3265 of 2026
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
__________
Page 6 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:44 pm )
2026:MHC:4445
WA.No.3265 of 2026
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
__________
Page 7 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:44 pm )
2026:MHC:4445
WA.No.3265 of 2026
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”.
__________
Page 8 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:44 pm )
2026:MHC:4445
WA.No.3265 of 2026
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
__________
Page 9 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:44 pm )
2026:MHC:4445
WA.No.3265 of 2026
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,
__________
Page 10 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:44 pm )
2026:MHC:4445
WA.No.3265 of 2026
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
__________
Page 11 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:44 pm )
2026:MHC:4445
WA.No.3265 of 2026
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
__________
Page 12 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:44 pm )
2026:MHC:4445
WA.No.3265 of 2026
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
1
case of The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) vs. Kanchana
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
1
2024 MHC 2243
__________
Page 13 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:44 pm )
2026:MHC:4445
WA.No.3265 of 2026
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
__________
Page 14 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:44 pm )
2026:MHC:4445
WA.No.3265 of 2026
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
__________
Page 15 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:44 pm )
2026:MHC:4445
WA.No.3265 of 2026
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
__________
Page 16 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:44 pm )
2026:MHC:4445
WA.No.3265 of 2026
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.
__________
Page 17 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:44 pm )
2026:MHC:4445
WA.No.3265 of 2026
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
__________
Page 18 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:44 pm )
2026:MHC:4445
WA.No.3265 of 2026
To
The Sub- Registrar, Periamet,
1103, EVR Periyar Salai,
Chennai -600 003.
__________
Page 19 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:44 pm )
2026:MHC:4445
WA.No.3265 of 2026
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN, J.
cse
WA.No.3265 of 2026
26-10-2026
__________
Page 20 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:44 pm )