பாகபாத்திய விடுதலைப்பத்திரம்
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, in proceedings Pa.Mu. No. 11040/P1/2018 dated 05.02.2024, decided a revision petition about pending document P84/2009 at Joint Sub Registrar Office No. 2, Erode, relating to a release deed titled பாகபாத்திய விடுதலைப்பத்திரம். The decision rejects both the Erode District Registrar's earlier classification and the revision petition, and directs the District Registrar, Erode, to issue a corrected order classifying different items in the document under different stamp categories.
What this document is
Proceedings Pa.Mu. No. 11040/P1/2018 dated 05.02.2024 were issued by the Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. They decide a revision petition filed against the order of the District Registrar, Erode, dated 20.12.2017 on pending document P84/2009 in Joint Sub Registrar Office No. 2, Erode.
What property document was under review
The document under review is titled பாகபாத்திய விடுதலைப்பத்திரம் and was written on 09.11.2009.
Key facts recorded are:
- Document number is P84/2009.
- Office is Joint Sub Registrar Office No. 2, Erode.
- Property value is Rs. 72,00,000.
- Stamp duty borne by the document is Rs. 10,000.
- The District Registrar had treated it as a release in favour of a non family member under the Indian Stamp Act.
- The District Registrar had fixed deficit stamp duty of Rs. 5,66,000 and penalty of Rs. 1,000.
Why the dispute arose
The release was executed by A. Narayanasami and his family in favour of A. Nagarajan and his family. The text records that A. Narayanasami and A. Nagarajan are brothers.
The District Registrar had concluded that, except for the first executant and the first claimant, the other persons did not fall within the explanation of family, and therefore treated the document as a release to non family members.
In the revision, the petitioners argued that the parties had prior rights in the property, that they were co owners, and that the document was only a release among family members for which proper stamp duty and registration fee had already been paid.
What the Inspector General decided
After examining the file and hearing the parties on 12.10.2023, the Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority found that the document could not be treated in one single way for all items.
The decision says:
- Items 2, 3 and 4 are to be classified as release under Article 55A, because the releasing side had no pre existing right over those properties, while one recipient had a pre existing right and the other four did not.
- For Item 1, the 1/5 share out of A. Narayanasami's undivided half share that reaches A. Nagarajan, who had a pre existing right, is to be classified under Article 55A.
- For Item 1, the remaining 4/5 that reaches A. Nagarajan's wife and daughters, who had no pre existing right, is to be classified under Article 58(a)(i) as settlement in favour of non family members.
Who this affects
This matters to anyone dealing with release deeds or family property documents in Tamil Nadu, especially where some parties may have prior rights in the property and others may not. It shows that the Registration Department may split one document into different stamp classifications depending on the rights of each recipient.
Final outcome
The proceedings state that both the District Registrar, Erode order and the revision petition are rejected, and the District Registrar, Erode, is instructed to issue a corrected order in line with the revised classification.
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
Did the authority fully accept the District Registrar, Erode classification?
No. The proceedings say the District Registrar, Erode order and the revision petition were both rejected, and the District Registrar was directed to issue a corrected order.
Was the document treated entirely as a family release?
No. The final decision classifies different parts differently. Some items were treated as release under Article 55A, while part of Item 1 was treated under Article 58(a)(i) as settlement in favour of non family members.
Why was part of the document not accepted as a simple family release?
The proceedings record that for Items 2, 3 and 4, A. Narayanasami's family had no pre existing right. They also record that A. Nagarajan's wife and daughters had no pre existing right in the relevant part of Item 1.
If one document covers several properties, can the stamp classification differ item by item?
Yes. These proceedings classify Items 2, 3 and 4 one way, and split Item 1 into two parts with different classifications based on who had pre existing rights.
