Proceedings on revision petition for pending document No. P49/2017, Uthiramerur Sub Registrar Office
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, in proceedings Pa.Mu.En. 14474/P1/2019 dated 6 March 2024, decided a revision petition about a pending receipt document at Uthiramerur Sub Registrar Office. The proceedings hold that the document cannot be treated as a release in favour of a non family member under the Indian Stamp Act, and instead say it should be treated as a receipt and a release of claim, with corrected orders to be issued by the District Registrar, Chengalpattu.
What this document is
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai, in proceedings Pa.Mu.En. 14474/P1/2019 dated 6 March 2024, passed a final order on a revision petition against the District Registrar, Chengalpattu order dated 28 January 2019. The case concerns pending document No. P49/2017 at Uthiramerur Sub Registrar Office.
What the case was about
The document was described as a receipt document, written on 8 April 2017. It was executed by Tmt. R. Suseela and Tmt. C. Thilagavathi in favour of Thiru M. Shankar.
Key facts recorded in the proceedings are:
- stamp duty borne on the document was Rs.2
- no property value was shown
- the District Registrar had treated it as a release in favour of a non family member under Article 55(C)
- the District Registrar had determined deficit stamp duty of Rs.19,62,189 and penalty of Rs.811
Why the document was executed
The proceedings say the document arose from a will executed by late C. Meganatha Mudaliyar in favour of his son, Thiru M. Shankar. Under the condition in that will, Thiru M. Shankar paid Rs.1,00,000 each to his two sisters, Tmt. R. Suseela and Tmt. C. Thilagavathi.
The sisters confirmed:
- they had received the amounts
- they would not claim any right in the property mentioned in the release document
- the document would serve as a receipt for the amounts paid
- there was no balance due under the will
What the authority decided
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority found that the executants did not have co ownership in the property. The proceedings also note that the parties were brother and sisters, so the document could not be classified as a release in favour of a non family member under Article 55(C).
Instead, the proceedings say the document has two features:
- a receipt for the money received, under Article 53
- a release only of claim, under Article 55A
The proceedings further state that, under Section 6 of the Indian Stamp Act, the document is chargeable under Article 55A.
Who this affects
This matters to people dealing with family settlement, will based claims, release deeds and receipt documents in Tamil Nadu. It shows that where a person has no co ownership in the property and only gives up a claim after receiving money under a will condition, the document may not be treated as a full release to a non family member.
Final outcome
The proceedings dismissed the District Registrar's order and also dismissed the revision petition, while directing the District Registrar to issue a proper corrected order.
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 proceedings confirm the District Registrar's classification as a release to a non family member?
No. The proceedings say the document cannot be classified under Article 55(C) as a release in favour of a non family member.
How did the proceedings say the document should be understood?
The proceedings say it operates as a receipt for the money received and as a release only of claim. They state that the document is chargeable under Article 55A.
Why was the document not treated as a normal property release?
The proceedings record that the executants did not have co ownership in the property, and that their connection came from a will condition under which they received money and gave up any claim.
What was the final direction given after the revision petition?
The proceedings say the District Registrar, Chengalpattu must issue a corrected order. They also state that the earlier District Registrar order and the revision petition were dismissed.
