Proceedings on revision petition for pending Document No. P-154/2019
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai, in proceedings Pa.Mu.13511/P1/2020 dated 06.05.2021, decided a revision petition about pending Document No. P-154/2019 at the Adyar Sub Registrar Office. The proceedings set aside the Adyar Sub Registrar's earlier decision to treat the consent deed as a sale document, and held that it was a subsidiary document connected to the earlier sale transaction, so no deficit stamp duty or registration fee was payable on that basis.
What this document is
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai, in proceedings Pa.Mu.13511/P1/2020 dated 06.05.2021, passed a final order on a revision petition relating to pending Document No. P-154/2019 in the Adyar Sub Registrar Office. The document under review was titled "சம்மத பத்திரம்" (consent deed), written on 09.07.2019.
What the dispute was about
The Adyar Sub Registrar, functioning at District Registrar level, had earlier decided that the consent deed actually caused transfer of the 3/4 share belonging to the wife and two daughters of Thiru T.C. Rajagopalan. On that basis, the Adyar Sub Registrar treated it as a sale document and fixed deficit stamp duty and registration fee.
Key facts recorded in the proceedings are:
- Pending document number was P-154/2019.
- The office was Adyar Sub Registrar Office.
- The document title was consent deed.
- The property value was Rs. 2,85,00,000.
- The stamp duty borne by the document was Rs. 150.
- The Adyar Sub Registrar had classified it as a sale document.
- The Adyar Sub Registrar had fixed deficit stamp duty and registration fee at Rs. 14,96,250 and Rs. 8,55,000.
Why the revision was allowed
The revision petitioner said that the earlier sale deed No. 3005/2017 had already transferred not only the share of Thiru T.C. Rajagopalan, but also the shares of the other co-sharers, because powers of attorney had already been given in his favour through document numbers 156/2015, 1469/2015 and 1468/2015. According to that argument, the later consent deed was only to mention the omitted power of attorney details and to record consent for the earlier sale deed.
The proceedings note that both the earlier sale deed No. 3005/2017 and the consent deed involved the same purchaser and the same property, so they could be treated as one transaction. The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority concluded that the consent deed could be classified as a subsidiary document under Section 4 of the Indian Stamp Act.
What this means for buyers and owners
For this case, the proceedings say:
- the consent deed was not to be treated as a fresh sale document,
- the earlier order of the Adyar Sub Registrar was cancelled,
- the revision petition was accepted,
- no separate deficit stamp duty or registration fee was payable on the consent deed on the basis adopted by the Adyar Sub Registrar.
This is relevant if a later document only completes or confirms details omitted in an earlier registered sale involving the same property and the same purchaser.
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 treat the consent deed as a separate sale?
No. The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority held that the consent deed and the earlier sale deed related to the same purchaser and the same property, and treated the consent deed as a subsidiary document in the same transaction.
Was the earlier demand for deficit stamp duty and registration fee upheld?
No. The proceedings accepted the revision petition and set aside the Adyar Sub Registrar's order that had fixed deficit stamp duty and registration fee.
Why was the consent deed executed according to the petitioner's case?
The petitioner said the earlier sale deed had accidentally omitted the details of the powers of attorney given by the other family co-sharers, and that the consent deed was executed to complete that omission and record their consent to Sale Deed No. 3005/2017.
Who were the persons who executed the consent deed?
The proceedings record that the consent deed was executed by Tmt. Kalyani Rajagopalan, Tmt. Madhu Gurusamy and Tmt. Jaiswuit, and that the document was in favour of Thiru R. Chandrasekar.
