<br /> 2. The opposite parties appeared and filed written version. They have admitted the registration of the sale deed and also the rectification deed. As per the written statement, landed property comprised in Sy.No.1227/10/11 and the landed property comprised in Sy.No.1227/10/9 are different. Hence it is presumed that one of the boundaries is changed. The complainant presented a deed styled as rectification and written on white sheets before the 3rd opposite party on 31.07.2006. The 3rd opposite party impounded the document under Section 33(1) of Kerala Stamp Act as the same appeared to him not duly stamped. It is true that the deed of rectification does not require stamp duty. The Sub Registrar impounded the document is of opinion that the deed presented by the complainant is an instrument falling under Section 2(j) of the Kerala Stamp Act 1959 and hence it requires stamp duty of the original. If the mistake with <br /> regard to the boundaries of the property in the original deed is rectified without change in the extent of land, it can be presumed that the location of the property also changed. The Board of Revenue in its proceedings Order No.3590/1979 had ordered that change in boundaries of the property in the original document is material change and requires Stamp duty. So the Sub Registrar forwarded the impounded document to the District Registrar under Section 37(2) of the said document. The District Registrar is also of the opinion that P4/1/2006 of Sub Registry Office, Thodupuzha requires Stamp duty and ordered the payment of Rs.1,250/- towards stamp duty and Rs.250/- towards penalty on 13.09.2006 exercising the powers conferred under Section 39(2) of the said Act. The complainant paid the amount on 16.10.2006 and the District Registrar certified the payment of deficit stamp duty on the document. The document was returned to the Sub Registrar and the Sub Registrar registered the same as No.3434/2006. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties have done nothing to cause difficulties to the complainant in contravention of relevant section of Kerala Stamp Act and so the petition will not stand.<br /> 3. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5 marked on the side of the complainant. 2nd opposite party appeared and filed written version for opposite parties 1 to 3. After filing written version, the opposite parties were absent and set exparte.<br /> <br /> 4. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ? <br /> <br /> 5. THE POINT :- The complainant registered a sale deed as No.308/06 of Sub Registrar, Thodupuzha before the 3rd opposite party which was of 1 Are 6.5 Sq.Mtrs. of land comprised in survey No.1227/10/24 of Kumaramangalam Village, Thodupuzha Taluk. Ext.P1 is the copy of the same. But there was a mistake regarding the description of the northern boundary of the property scheduled therein. In order to write "property comprised in Sy.No.1227/10/11", by mistake it was entered as "Sy.No.1227/10/9". So the complainant corrected the same by a rectification deed as deed No.P4/1/06 dated 31/07/2006, which is Ext.P2. But the 2nd opposite party issued a show cause notice dated 7.08.2006 demanding to pay stamp duty and registration fee which is Ext.P3. Even though it is replied correctly, the 2nd opposite party issued an order to pay Rs.1,250/- as deficient stamp duty and Rs.250/- as penalty which is Ext.P5. The complainant paid the same also. As per the written version of 2nd opposite party, the deed is not a rectification deed, even though the complainant presented the same as that the document is rectification deed, but it is an instrument falling under Section 2(j) of the Kerala Stamp act 1959 and it requires stamp duty of the original. If the mistake with regards to the boundaries of the property in the original deed is rectified without change in the extent of land, it can be presumed that the location of the property also changed. The only dispute is that whether the deed No.P4/1/06 dated 31.07.2008 of SRO, Thodupuzha is a rectification deed or not. Is there any of the boundary is changed in that deed? As per PW1, there is only a clerical mistake happened. In the northern boundary "property comprised in Sy.No.1227/10/9" is written in the first deed. In the second deed it written as Sy.No.1227/10/11. In the place of survey number the third portion the digit '9' is mistakenly written for '11'. As per the complaint the rectification caused no change in the nature, lie, extent clause, Survey number etc. of the property covered by the sale deed No.308/06 dated 25.01.2006. Any way we think it is quite a normal mistake happened to the computer print. And it is not a mistake caused deliberately for changing the boundary. There is no evidence produced by the opposite parties 1 to 3 to show that there is change in property if the change in one digit of the survey number is changed. If there is another property lie in survey No.1227/10/9 is exists, neither any copy of such numbered sale deed is produced nor any person complained the matter before any of the opposite parties about the mistake of boundary. No loss is happened to anybody by correcting the mistake. So correcting the mistake in computer print is only a rectification. There is no forgery is committed by the complainant by the same. Demanding the fee of original deed for rectification deed is a gross deficiency in the part of opposite parties 1 and 2. The Ist opposite party is not directly liable for the act done by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. So we think it is fit to give back the excess fee remitted with penalty which is Rs.1500/- to the complainant. The complainant claimed Rs.10,000/- as compensation, it is a hike amount and we think it is fit to give Rs.2,000/- as compensation for difficulties caused to the complainant. Also Rs.2.000/- as cost of this petition. <br /> As a result, the petition allowed. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are directed to give back an amount of 1,500/- to the complainant with 12% interest from 16.10.2006 which was paid by the complainant as deficient stamp duty. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.2,000/- by way of compensation and Rs.2,000/- as the cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the outstanding amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 18th day of August, 2008<br />