AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—This Review Petition is filed by the respondents in the Original Petition aggrieved by the direction in the judgment to issue a certified copy of the document with an endorsement that the original is misplaced and is not traceable. In the Review Petition, it is pointed out that the document was not duly stamped and the Sub Registrar had impounded the document u/s 33 of the Kerala Stamp Act and transmitted the same to the District Registrar as provided u/s 37(2) of the Kerala Stamp Act. This happened in the year 1979.
Even though notice was issued to the executant/presentant, namely Shri. Ramachandra Reddiar as well as to the petitioner in the Original Petition, they did not respond for a long time and the District Registrar therefore passed a final order in the year 1981 and Rs. 2,606/- was fixed as deficit stamp duty. For a considerable period, there was no response and in the year 1994, the respondent/petitioner has deposited the deficit stamp duty in the Sub Registrar''s Office, Thiruvananthapuram and requested to return the original document. It is mentioned in paragraph No. 5 of the memorandum of Review Petition that by the lapse of 14 years, the said document, which was presented in the year 1979 was irrecoverably lost at the Office of the District Registrar and the registration of the document could not therefore be made. It is also mentioned that the Original Petition was filed after a period of 24 years. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the review petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. It is clear that the certified copy cannot be issued as the original was not registered.
This is a case where the document has not been registered so far. In ground No. C of the Review Petition, the review petitioners have pointed out that unless this Court permits registration of the document without the original but using the filing sheet available in the Office of the Sub Registrar, as a true copy referred to in Rule 4 of the Registration (Filing of True Copy) Rules, 1967 and for the purpose of Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 52 of the Registration Act, there is legal difficulty in complying with the judgment. It is also stated that the review petitioners are ready and willing to register the documents without the originals and based on the filing sheet, if this Court directs so. In that view of the matter, the Review Petition is allowed and the judgment in O.P. No. 7418/2003 dated 18.7.2008 is recalled.