Revision order on stamp classification of a consent affidavit
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai, in proceedings dated 23.03.19, decided a revision petition about document number P70/2016 registered at Thamaraipatti Sub Registrar Office. The decision says the document titled "சம்மத உறுதிமொழிப்பத்திரம்" cannot be treated as a family release under Article 55C, and must instead be treated as a release under Article 55A because the persons who signed it had no right in the property.
What this document is
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai, in proceedings dated 23.03.19, passed a final order on a revision petition filed under Section 56(1) of the Indian Stamp Act. The case concerns document number P70/2016 of Thamaraipatti Sub Registrar Office, dated 27.07.2016, titled "சம்மத உறுதிமொழிப்பத்திரம்", which had been stamped with Rs. 100.
What the dispute was about
The District Registrar, Madurai North, had earlier treated the document as a release in favour of a person who is not a family member under Article 55C, and demanded deficit stamp duty of Rs. 1,83,020 and penalty of Rs. 180. That decision was challenged by T. Sumathi through a revision petition.
Property background considered in the order
The proceedings record that the property originally belonged to திருமதி P. அங்கம்மாள். Under her will, the property was given only to her sons, திரு P. வீரபத்திரன் and திரு P. ஆறுமுகம், and her grandson, திரு V. முருகன். Later, the legal heirs of the deceased sons, along with co-owner திரு முருகன் and his wife திருமதி M. பரமேஸ்வரி, sold the property to திரு M. சரவணன் through document number 3251/2006. After that, திரு M. சரவணன் sold it to திருமதி T. சுமதி through document number 2964/2012.
Why the classification was changed
The document called "சம்மத உறுதிமொழிப்பத்திரம்" was executed by eight persons in favour of திருமதி T. சுமதி, expressing consent to document number 2964/2012.
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority found that:
- the executants were not persons to whom the property had been given under the will
- they had no co-ownership or preferential right in the property
- the document did not fit Article 55C
- the document also could not be classified under Section 4 as a mere consent document
- based on the Registration Department circular number 25808/C5/2000 dated 11.10.2000, releases not covered by Articles 55B, 55C or 55D must be classified under Article 55A
- a previous order dated 02.04.2012 was also relied on for the view that where a person without title writes a consent document in favour of a person with title, it should be classified under Article 55A
Who this affects
This is useful for buyers, owners and document writers dealing with consent, release or similar documents. It shows that if people signing a document have no actual right in the property, the Registration Department may treat the document as a general release under Article 55A, not as a family release or a simple consent document.
Final outcome
The revision petition was dismissed. The order also directed the District Registrar, Madurai North, to issue a corrected order on that basis.
This summary is generated from the source document to help you find what is relevant. The PDF above is authoritative. For advice on your own property, use LandLens One or speak to a qualified professional.
Common questions
Was the document accepted as only a consent affidavit?
No. The revision petitioner argued that it was only a consent document, but the Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority held that it could not be classified under Section 4 as a mere consent document.
Why was Article 55C rejected in this case?
Article 55C was rejected because the persons who executed the document had no co-ownership or preferential right in the property. The order says they had no right in the property under the will.
How did the authority finally classify the document?
The proceedings say the document should be classified as a release under Article 55A. The reason given is that it was executed by persons who had no right over the property.
What happened to the revision petition filed by T. Sumathi?
The revision petition was dismissed. The District Registrar, Madurai North, was directed to pass a corrected order.
