LUIS NEMESIO MENEZES AND 3 ORSversusTHE STATE OF GOA THR ITS SECRETARY REVENUE AND ANR

2026:BHC-GOA:1909-DB                    (905) WP 719.2026




                Sonam


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 719 OF 2026

                 1. Luis Nemesio Menezes,
                    66 years of age, married,
                    Indian National,
                    Son of Benjamin Francisco Menezes
                    and his wife;

                 2. Marilyn Menezes,
                    56 years of age, married,
                    Indian National,
                    Both residents of H. No. 225,
                    Santar Bhat, Piedade,
                    Divar, Ilhas, Goa.

                 3. Agapito Salvador Bento Menezes,
                    Aged 73 years of age, married,
                    Indian National,
                    Son of Benjamin Francisco Menezes
                    and his wife

                 4. Olga Perpetua Menezes,
                    Aged 67 years of age, married,
                    Indian National,
                    Both residents of H. No. 260/1,
                    Santar Bhat, Piedade, Divar,
                                                            … Petitioners
                    Ilhas, Goa.


                                         Page 1 of 7
                                     23rd September, 2026
                        (905) WP 719.2026




                        Versus

1. The State of Goa
   Through its Secretary Revenue,
   Secretariat,
   Alto-Porvorim, Goa.

2. The Sub Registrar of Ilhas,
   2nd Floor, Spaces, Patto,
   Panaji, Goa, 403001.                         …Respondents

Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jeet
Volvoikar, Mr. Bernard Fernandes, Ms. S. N. Joshi and Ms.
Sharlene Fernandes, Advocates for the Petitioners.

Mr. Deep Shirodkar, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

                   CORAM : VALMIKI MENEZES &
                               AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ.
                   DATED : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2026


ORAL JUDGMENT:

1.   Heard learned Advocates for the parties.

2.   Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith; at the request
of and with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties,
the matter is finally heard and disposed of. Learned
Additional Government Advocate Mr. Deep Shirodkar
waives service on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

                         Page 2 of 7
                     23rd September, 2026
                        (905) WP 719.2026




3.   By this petition, the Petitioners have sought a writ of
mandamus to direct Respondent No. 2, Sub Registrar of
Tiswadi, to register the Consent Terms along with the
Consent Decree passed by the Civil Court and to accept the
same for registration, with payment of Stamp Duty of Rs.
5,000/-; the Petitioners have also sought directions to
Respondent No.2 to condone the delay if any, for
registration of the said Consent Terms.

4.   The petition has been opposed by the learned
Additional Government Advocate Mr. Deep Shirodkar on
behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 mainly on two
contentions: the first being that the Petitioners have
presented the document with inadequate Stamp Duty under
the Stamp Act as amended by the State of Goa, by claiming
that the Stamp Duty of Rs. 5000/- under Article 32 of the
Stamp Act is applicable to the instrument, as opposed to the
Sub Registrar’s claim of payment of Stamp Duty on
Rs. 36,00,000/- (the value of the Gift/Conveyance)
calculated according to Article 22 of the Stamp Act. The
second contention raised is that the document, which is a
certified copy of the Consent Decree executed between the
parties before the Civil Court, has been presented beyond



                         Page 3 of 7
                     23rd September, 2026
                          (905) WP 719.2026




the period of four months prescribed under Section 23 of the
Registration Act, 1908.

5.   We have considered the pleadings in the petition and
the rival submissions of the parties. The document sought to
be registered is a Consent Decree dated 23.07.2025, which
was executed between Plaintiff No.1 and Defendant No. 1
in Special Civil Suit No. 9/2023, before the Court of Civil
Judge Senior Division, ‘A’ Court at Panaji; the document
was executed by the aforementioned parties along with their
spouses. By the document, the Plaintiff No. 1 has gifted his
undivided share to his brother, the Defendant No. 1 and his
wife, Defendant No.2. There is therefore no dispute that the
Gift Deed is executed amongst siblings, and is therefore
clearly covered by Article 32 of the Stamp Act. The Stamp
Duty levied on such a document is Rs. 5000/-. There is also
no dispute that the Stamp Duty has been paid along with the
executed document, before the Civil Court. In our opinion
therefore, the document being a transfer of property by way
of gift amongst siblings, the provisions of Article 22 which
deals with Conveyance of the property other than between
family members would not be applicable. Consequently, the
Stamp Duty of Rs. 5000/-, which is paid before the Civil
Court has been correctly paid and no further demand for

                           Page 4 of 7
                     23rd September, 2026
                          (905) WP 719.2026




further Stamp Duty can be made by the Sub Registrar for
registering the document.

6.    There is also no dispute with the fact that the
document has been duly executed before the Civil Court and
the Decree in those terms has been passed by the Civil Court
on 23.07.2025 itself. The Civil Court issued a certified copy
of the executed Consent Terms and Decree on 16.08.2025.
It is this document that was uploaded on the portal of the
Sub Registrar’s office on 08.11.2025, well within the four
months prescribed under Section 23 of the Registration Act.
It is obvious, in the circumstances, that seems the document
sought to be registered is a certified copy of the Decree of
the Court, it would be the date of the issuance of the certified
copy that must be considered as the date for reckoning the
four months’ period prescribed under Section 23 for
presentation of the document to the Sub Registrar’s office.
In this case, the document was uploaded to the portal of the
Sub Registrar’s office, well within this period, and that is
the date that would be considered as the date of presentation.

7.    It appears that the Sub Registrar raised the
aforementioned two objections, as to Stamp Duty and the
presentation of the document beyond the prescribed four
months, by an E-mail communicating to the presenter of the
                            Page 5 of 7
                       23rd September, 2026
                            (905) WP 719.2026




document i.e. original Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, the same on
the portal itself. According to Clause 10 of the Consent
Decree, the document could be presented for registration by
either the Plaintiffs or Defendants.

8.    Considering     the     aforementioned    circumstances,
obviously, the objections raised were unfounded, as there
was full compliance with the provisions of Section 23 of the
Registration Act, as also the provisions of the Stamp Act as
are applicable to the State of Goa.

9.    In these circumstances, therefore, we hold that the
objections raised by the Sub Registrar are not based upon
the correct interpretation of the provisions of the Stamp Act
and of Section 23 of the Registration Act. Consequently,
therefore, in the peculiar facts of this case, the petition must
be allowed. The Sub Registrar shall now register the
Consent Decree and consider the Stamp Duty of Rs. 5000/-
paid before the Civil Court as the correct Stamp Duty and
proceed to register the document on presentation of the
physical certified copy of the document. However, the Sub
Registrar shall take the date of presentation to be the date of
the upload to the portal of the Sub Registrar i.e. 08.11.2025.
The Sub Registrar shall facilitate the Petitioners in every
manner to upload the document for the purpose of
                             Page 6 of 7
                       23rd September, 2026
                          (905) WP 719.2026




completing the registration process and shall complete the
registration of the document as far as possible within three
weeks from today.

10.   Rule is made absolute in the above terms. We clarify
that this Judgment has been rendered in the peculiar facts of
this case and shall not act as a precedent for any other cases.




AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.                       VALMIKI MENEZES, J.




                           Page 7 of 7
                       23rd September, 2026