Judgment :- (Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as stated therein.) The writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents not to insist on the petitioner paying the Stamp Duty, if any, over and above the terms of the decree made in O.S.No.680 of 1996, dated 2.3.2001, on the file of the XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, and in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, reported in 1997 Writ Law Reporter at page 396, and for other orders. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as for the respondents. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows: 3. The petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.680 of 1996, on the file of the XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, on 18.1.1996, praying for a decree for specific performance. The petitioner and the Vendor are close relatives and as such, they were in joint possession and enjoyment of the Flat, which was the subject matter in O.S.No.680 of 1996. 4. As per the family arrangement, the Vendor, K.P.Leela, had agreed to sell her 50% of the undivided share in the vacant land along with 50% share of the Flat for a fixed consideration. As per the agreement of sale, the petitioner and his wife had taken possession of the Flat in question and since then, they have been continuously in possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned property, which is from the month of January, 1993. Even though the petitioner was ready and willing for registering the sale deed, the petitioner’s Vendor had not chosen to execute the sale deed as per the agreement. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file a suit in O.S.No.680 of 1996, for specific performance. Even though the petitioner’s Vendor had filed a written statement, on 14.12.1988, she had not contested the suit after the issues were framed. Therefore, she was set exparte and the suit was decreed, on 2.3.2001. 5. The petitioner by his letters, dated 18.7.2001, 30.7.2002 and 18.8.2002, had requested the petitioner’s Vendor to comply with the decree. However, the requests made by the petitioner were not complied with. The petitioner had filed a petition for executing the decree in E.P.No.1828 of 2002. Therefore, she was set exparte and the suit was decreed, on 2.3.2001. 5. The petitioner by his letters, dated 18.7.2001, 30.7.2002 and 18.8.2002, had requested the petitioner’s Vendor to comply with the decree. However, the requests made by the petitioner were not complied with. The petitioner had filed a petition for executing the decree in E.P.No.1828 of 2002. Thereafter, the petitioner had deposited the agreed amount, as per the decree made in O.S.No.680 of 1996, dated 2.3.2001, in the Reserve Bank of India, on 12.9.2002. On 22.6.2004, the Execution proceedings were closed and the Presiding Officer of the concerned Court had executed the sale deed, after the petitioner had paid the Stamp Duty on par with the decree amount. On 30.6.2004, the petitioner had presented the sale deed and got it registered before the second respondent on payment of the necessary registration fees. The sale deed was registered by the second respondent, as document No.820 of 2004, dated 30.6.2004. 6. In spite of several requests made by the petitioner, the registered document was not released by the second respondent. While so, during the second week of January, 2005, the petitioner had received a communication from the second respondent asking the petitioner to give a statement with regard to the total extent of 50% undivided share and the extent of 50% of the Flat area, since the particulars were not mentioned in the schedule contained in the sale deed. All the required particulars were given to the second respondent, on 29.3.2005. Thereafter, it was informed that as per the circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration, the petitioner was bound to pay the difference of Stamp Duty on par with the guideline value, which had prevailed in the month of January, 1993. Only on such payment being made, the document would be released by the second respondent. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court. 7. In the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent, the claims made by the petitioner were denied. Only on such payment being made, the document would be released by the second respondent. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court. 7. In the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent, the claims made by the petitioner were denied. It was further submitted that according to sub Rule 1-A of Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Stamps (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, if an instrument relates to only one item of property and if that the property is a building, or if an instrument relates to more than one item of property and one or more such item is or are a building or buildings, the particulars of the buildings should be furnished. Since the petitioner had failed to furnish the extent of land and the built up area and the details of the building, the second respondent was not in a position to arrive at the value of the building found in the said sale deed of the petitioner. 8. It was further submitted that though the duty was chargeable, under Article 23 of schedule 1 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Inspector General of Registration, in his proceedings No.56710/C2/2001, dated 11.2.2002, had issued instructions to all the Registering Officers to levy Stamp Duty on the value that had prevailed on the date of the agreement of sale. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had relied on an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in S.P. Padmavathi Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 1997 (II) CTC 617, wherein, it was held that with regard to an instrument of conveyance executed pursuant to the decree for a specific performance passed by a Civil Court, when there was no allegation of under valuation or lack of bona fide, mere time gap between the agreement of sale and execution of instrument of conveyance would not enable the Registering Officer to invoke the provision of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, unless there are reasons to believe that there is an attempt to deliberately undervalue the subject of transfer to evade the payment of proper Stamp Duty. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had stated that in such circumstances, the second respondent is legally bound to release the registered document to the petitioner without demanding payment of additional Stamp Duty. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had stated that in such circumstances, the second respondent is legally bound to release the registered document to the petitioner without demanding payment of additional Stamp Duty. 10. However, the learned Government Advocate had pointed out that the document in question could be released subject to the following of necessary procedures, including making of certain endorsements on the document in question before they are released. 11. On a perusal of the documents available and based on the rival contentions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the sale deed in question could be released subject to certain conditions. Therefore, the respondents are directed to release the sale deed, registered as document No.820 of 2004, relating to the property which was the subject matter of the decree, dated 2.3.2001, made in O.S.No.680 of 1996, on the file of the XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, subject to all the necessary conditions that may be imposed in accordance with law, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents are further directed to conduct and complete the enquiry and other related proceedings, under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.