W.P(MD)Nos.20213 & 20152 of 2023 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.07.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY W.P(MD)Nos.20213 & 20152 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.16686, 16687, 16619 , 16621 of 2023 & 2728 , 2750 of 2024 Chandrasekaran. K ... Petitioner (In both petitions) Vs 1. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, and Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Pattinapakkam, Chennai - 600 028. 2. The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Virudhuagar. 3. The Sub Registrar, Devakottai. ... Respondents (In both petitions) PRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.20213 of 2023: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, by calling for the entire records in connection with the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in No. 17848/N3/2023 dated 17.05.2023 and the proceedings of the second respondent dated 01.11.2016 in Na.Ka.Tha.Paa.No.S2/541/2016 and quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to release the consent deed dated 28.09.2015 in Doc.No. 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)Nos.20213 & 20152 of 2023 3155/2015, on the file of the third respondent. PRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.20152 of 2023 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, by calling for the entire records in connection with the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in Mu.Mu.No.2422/N3/2023 dated 10.03.2023 and the proceedings of the second respondent dated 01.11.2016 in Na.Ka.Tha.Paa.No.S2/542/2016 and quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to release the consent deed dated 28.09.2015 in Doc. No. 3156/2015, on the file of the third respondent. (In both petitions) For Petitioner : Mr.K.K.Senthil For Respondents : Mr.G.Suriya Ananth Additional Government Pleader COMMON ORDER The Writ Petitions have been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned proceedings dated 17.05.2023, 01.11.2016 and 10.03.2023 and consequently, to direct the respondents to release the consent deed dated 28.09.2015 in Document Nos. 3155/2015 and 3156/2015. 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)Nos.20213 & 20152 of 2023 2. The petitioner's father purchased the property vide Document No.2757 of 2002 dated 29.07.2002 from the legal heirs of Murugiah Nadar namely M.Subbiah, S.Somasundaram, Anbarasu, Selvi and Lakshmi. There was some mistake in the said deed hence a rectification deed in Document No.2611 of 2005 was executed, thereby granted extent of the property. The very same vendor also sold larger extent in TS.No.56/1 Block 1, Ward L (Devakottai Town), Udayachi Village, to an extent of 86.5 cents of land to the petitioner's father vide Document No.2612 of 2005. In the said document TS.No. Was wrongly mentions as 56/2 instead of 56/1. Hence, a rectification deed was executed by the vendors on 05.09.2013, which had been registered on 24.01.2014 as Document No.173 of 2014. The sale deeds and ratification deed of the legal heirs of Murugiah Nadar, namely, P.Meenakshi and A.Sagundalavalli were not joined as parties and they came forward to execute two consent deed in favour of the petitioner's father consenting to the sale of the properties in the petitioner's father's favour by their siblings and the said consent deeds has been registered as Document Nos.3155 of 2015 and 3156 of 2015 on the file of the third respondent on 28.09.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner's father had passed away on 03.11.2015 leaving the petitioner and other five persons as legal heirs. While so, the second respondent issued a notice dated 03.08.2016, addressed to the petitioner's father contemplating to recover the stamp duty. Since the consent deeds in Document Nos.3155/2015 and 3156/2015 were executed to the tune of Rs.15,11,300/- and 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)Nos.20213 & 20152 of 2023 Rs.3,89,900/- respectively. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the consent deeds were executed only as a consequence of the original sale deeds. Therefore, there is no transfer of right as such. 4. However, the contention of the respondents are that the two persons who executed the consent deeds released their rights in the property. Therefore, the documents are to be considered as released deeds and appropriate stamp duty has to be paid by the petitioner. 5. It is seen that the petitioner's father died as early as 2015, but the respondents issued notice only in the year 2016. 6. The next contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner did not receive any notice for the said proceedings. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an objection to the said proceedings and the same were rejected on the ground that the petitioner has to file an objection or appeal within a period of 60 days. The petitioner further submitted that his father died on 03.11.2015, but the deficit stamp duty proceedings were initiated in the year 2016 and no notice was received by the petitioner. 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)Nos.20213 & 20152 of 2023 7. On verifying the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is seen that it is a printed form wherein the column for “non-appearance” (Ajar Agavillai) has been inadvertently struck off. However, the respondents have not clearly stated whether the petitioner's father appeared for the enquiry. Hence, the benefit of doubt would arise that has to be granted to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is concluding that the petitioner's father did not appear before the authorities for the said proceedings. As far as the limitation is concerned, since the order was passed against the death person, limitation would not arise. Therefore, since the impugned orders were passed on the ground of limitation, they are liable to be set aside. As far as the consent deeds is concerned, the learned Single Judge passed on order in W.P.No.1057 of 2016 dated 15.04.2019, wherein it has been categorically stated that the release deed is different from consent deed and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “9. The impugned order is passed treating the document as a deed of release in favour of co-owner, who is not a family member. The difference between a consent deed and release deed is that in the former there is no transfer of an interest or right to another, while in the latter there is a transfer of an interest or right to another. A release of a right can only be made in favour of a person, who had a pre~existing right or claim and by the reason of the release, the right of the releasee is enlarged. In the instant case, the legal heirs of the original owner had only given consent deed by affirming the title of the petitioner-s vendors and no new right is created or conferred. In this regard, it is useful to extract the relevant portion from the consent deed : 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)Nos.20213 & 20152 of 2023 NkYk; Nkw;fzl; vq;fspd; rnfhjuh; FQ;Rg;igad; mth;fspd; thhpRfspy; xUtuhd ey;yg;gd; mth;fSf;F B nrl;a+ypy; gphpe;j nrhj;Jf;fspy; xU gFjpiaAk;. Nkw;gb FQ;Rg;igad; mth;fspd; kw;Wk; ,uz;L thhpRfshd utp kw;Wk; uNk;]; MfpNahh;fSf;F C nrl;a+ypy; gphpe;j nrhj;Jf;fspy; xU gFjpiaAk; Nrh;j;J ePq;fs; fpiuak; ngw;W me;j Mtzk; vlg;ghb rhh;gjpthsh; mYtyfj;jpy; 1 Gj;jfk; 810-2013 vz;zhfg; gjpT nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. Nkw;gb tPjk; ePq;fs; fpiuaq;fs; ngw;wJ vq;fs; midtUf;Fk; ed;whf njhpAk;. ,t;thwhf ePq;fs; fpiuaq;fs; ngw;W rh;t Rje;jpukhf mDgtpj;J tUk; nrhj;Jf;fisg; nghWj;Jk;. ,ju nrhj;Jf;fisg; nghWj;Jk; vq;fs; midtUf;Fs; xU gjpT nra;ag;gl;l ghfg;gphptpidg; gj;jpuk; Vw;glhj fhuzj;jpdhYk;. vq;fSf;Fk; ePq;fs; fpiuaq;fs; ngw;w nrhj;Jf;fspy; ghj;jpak; ,Uf;f$Lk; vd jhq;fs; fUJtjhYk;. ePq;fs; fpiuaq;fs; ngw;w rkaj;jpy; ehq;fs; midtUk; njhopy; kwW;k; FLk;g R+o;epiy fhuzkhf ntspA+hpy; trpj;J te;jjhYk; nkwgb tPjk; ePq;fs; fpiuaq;fs; ngw;w Mtzq;fspy; ifnaOj;Jk;. NuifaAk; nra;a ,aytpy;iy. jw;NghJ ehq;fs; nrhe;j CUf;F te;J Nrh;e;Jtpl;Nlhk;. MfNt ehq;fs; Nkw;gb fpiuaq;fSf;F KOkdjhf rk;kjpj;J ,e;j rk;kjg;gj;jpuj;ij ,d;W cq;fSf;F vOjp nfhLj;Js;Nshk;. ... 10. A plain reading of the above ipso facto makes it clear that there is no conveyance of right or title in favour of anybody and it is only the consent or no objection given for the purchase, which was made earlier by the petitioner.” Another learned Single Judge has also considered the same issue in W.P.(MD)No. 16815 of 2008 dated 23.04.2021 and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “ 28. In case of single transaction if there are several instruments used or involved, only the principal instrument shall be taken into account for the purpose of stamp duty. 34. Therefore, the effect is one and the same insofar as the demand 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)Nos.20213 & 20152 of 2023 of stamp duty from the petitioner as per the impugned order. Either the Registration Department can treat the sale deed, dated 04.09.2006 as a principal deed and consent deed dated 03.05.2007 as an additional instrument for a single transaction of sale being conveyed to the petitioner on 04.09.2006 or the Registration Department can treat 03.05.2007 being the principal deed insofar as the conveyance of land belongs to Sivaraman and in that case, the stamp duty already been paid by the petitioner in respect of sale effected on 04.09.2006 with regard to the portion of the Sivaraman-s property, which is the exact amount now has been demanded through the impugned order, can be adjusted by the Registration Department themselves and even in that case, absolutely there could be no chance for demanding any further from the petitioner by way of stamp duty for registering the consent deed dated 03.05.2007 as demanded by the second respondent and confirmed by the first respondent through the impugned orders.” 8. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the present cases also consent deeds were executed by the siblings in order to confirm earlier sale executed by the other siblings. Hence, the petitioner is not liable to pay additional stamp duty, which was wrongly quantified by considering the same as a release deed. Accordingly, the impugned orders are quashed. The respondents are directed to released the document within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With the above said directions, these Writ Petitions are allowed. There 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)Nos.20213 & 20152 of 2023 shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 16.07.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes jbr To: 1. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, and Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Pattinapakkam, Chennai - 600 028. 2. The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Virudhuagar. 3. The Sub Registrar, Devakottai. 8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)Nos.20213 & 20152 of 2023 S.SRIMATHY , J. jbr ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)Nos.20213 & 20152 of 2023 DATED : 16.07.2025 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis