The Kerala High Court on 15 December, 2010 in P.A. Jihas Vs. District Registrar, 2012 (3) KLT 194 held that “even if there is an extinguishment of right and creation of right, that will not alter the nature of the rectification deed and for all purposes including stamp duty, the document has to be treated as a rectification deed.
Rectification of Sale Deed
Justice Antony Dominic observed that the petitioner cannot be saddled with the liability to execute a fresh sale deed.
While setting aside the Order of District Registrar and directing to register a rectification deed the Court held that it is true that there is an extinguishment of right in respect of one apartment and creation of right in respect of another. But, such extinguishment of right and creation of right has occurred due to a mistake that had crept into the sale deed.
It is that mistake, which is sought to be corrected by the rectification deed. In that process, even if there is an extinguishment of right and creation of right, that will not alter the nature of the rectification deed and for all purposes including stamp duty, the document has to be treated as a rectification deed.
Facts of the Case
In a sale deed in which the petitioner is the Vendor, flat number and pan number of the vendor mistakenly given. For correcting the aforesaid two mistakes, the parties executed rectification deed. The document was presented for adjudication before the District Registrar in terms of Section 31 of the Kerala Stamp Act.
On adjudication, the District Registrar has taken the view that for all purposes the document should be treated as a sale deed. It is challenging the Order, this writ petition is filed.
View taken in the Order is that, since in the 1st document the property sold is Flat No.I-1 and as what is now conveyed is Flat No.I-11, in the process of rectification what is really taken place is extinguishment of right in respect of one and creation of right in respect of another. It is therefore that, the District Registrar has held that what is to be executed should be a sale deed.
The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mouhammed Usman N.S. and also the learned Government Pleader Dileep Mohan on behalf of the respondents.