The Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking orders to condone the delay of 341 days in preferring the appeal, challenging the dismissal of statutory appeal filed under Section 47-A(b) of Indian Stamps Act, dated 28.07.2017, on the file of the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai.
2.It is not in dispute that the petitioner purchased a property in S.No.232/215, Thirupparankundram Village, Madurai South Taluk, an extent of 28 cents and got the sale deed registered at the Office of the first respondent vide document No.1649/1983. It is also not in dispute that the second respondent by alleging that the sale deed has been under valued, has sent a notice, dated 02.08.1994, calling the petitioner for enquiry and that the petitioner sent a reply on 23.08.1994.
2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.P(MD)No.16682 of 2018
3.It is evident from the records that the second respondent after conducting enquiry, has passed the final order, dated 27.04.1998, fixing the market value of the said property at Rs.1,90,445/- and fixed the stamp duty payable by the petitioner at Rs.22,858/-. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 27.04.1998, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Registration and he passed an order, dated 02.06.2004, rejecting the appeal, on the ground that it is belated. Challenging the said order, dated 02.06.2004, the petitioner has filed a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus in W.P.(MD)No.24666 of 2015, to call for the records pertaining to the order, dated 02.06.2004 and to quash the same and consequently, directing the Sub Registrar, Thirupparankundram, to release the petitioner's sale deed and the learned Judge of this Court, after hearing both sides, has passed a conditional order, dated 11.08.2015, setting aside the order subject to the petitioner pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards the Chief Minister's Relief Fund and on such payment, the first respondent therein Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, was directed to take the appeal and decide the same on merits.
4.It is not in dispute that in pursuance of the orders of this Court, the appeal was taken up by the Inspector General of Registration and 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.P(MD)No.16682 of 2018 thereafter, passed the impugned order, dated 28.07.2017, dismissing the appeal. The petitioner, aggrieved by the said dismissal order, has preferred an appeal along with the present application to condone the delay of 341 days in preferring the appeal.
5.The petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation petition, has alleged that the petitioner being an illiterate, she was so much confused to invoke the territorial jurisdiction of this Court whether it comes under Madurai Bench or Principal Bench; that she was driven to several advocate offices and also the chronic illness and that therefore, the delay was caused in filing the appeal.
6.As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Civil Side), the petitioner has preferred the statutory appeal with a delay of 17 years 4 months and 7 days and the same was rejected as it was belated and that subsequently, in pursuance of the orders of this Court, the appeal was again taken up for enquiry. Even after the dismissal of the appeal for the second time, the petitioner has not taken any steps immediately to prefer the present appeal. But on the other hand, she has come before this Court with a delay of 341 days, which is clearly inordinate. 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.P(MD)No.16682 of 2018
7.As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Civil Side) in the Writ Petition filed earlier, the petitioner has mainly canvassed the ground that she is an illiterate lady and that that was the reason why she could not file the appeal in time.
8.As already pointed out, the only reason now canvassed for condoning the delay of 341 days is that she is an illiterate woman and she does not know as to whether the appeal has to be filed either before the Principal Bench or before the Madurai Bench and that was the reason for the delay.
9.It is fundamental that no one can plead ignorance of law to excuse their wrong or mistake. Moreover, as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Civil Side), her inability to find out the territorial jurisdiction of the Court in which, the appeal is to be preferred, by no stretch of imagination can be considered as a reason or ground sufficient enough to condone the delay. Though the petitioner has alleged the reason of chronic illness, she has not elaborated anything further. The petitioner has not even whispered about the nature of illness and the nature and period 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.P(MD)No.16682 of 2018 of treatment taken by her and she has not produced any material or evidence to prove the same.
10. It is pertinent to note that the sale deed was registered in the year 1993 by valuing the property at Rs.19,500/- and she had paid stamp duty at Rs.1,690/-. The competent authority, after enquiry, has already fixed the market value of property at Rs.1,90,445/- and determined the deficit stamp duty to be payable by the petitioner as Rs.21,178/-.
11.As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Civil Side), the petitioner without paying the stamp duty determined, has been taking proceedings, that too with inordinate delay to evade and avoid the payment of stamp duty and thereby to cause loss to the Government Exchequer.
12.On considering the entire facts and circumstances, this Court is of the clear view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient reason or explanation for the inordinate delay occurred in preferring the appeal and consequently, this Court concludes that the above petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.P(MD)No.16682 of 2018
13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed . Consequently, A.S.(MD)No.SR73038 of 2018, is rejected at the SR stage itself. No costs.
15.11.2022 das To
1.The Sub Registrar, Thirupparankundram Sub Registration Office, Madurai.
2.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Old Ramanathapuram Collectorate Campus, Madurai.
3.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.P(MD)No.16682 of 2018 K.MURALI SHANKAR.J., das C.M.P.(MD)No.16682 of 2018 in C.M.A.(MD)No.SR73038 of 2018 15.11.2022 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis