ப.மு. 15188/P1/2017, Settlement Deed Revision Final Order, 2022

What the decision covers

The Tamil Nadu Registration Department's Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority considered a revision petition against the Kancheepuram District Registrar's decision concerning pending document P66/2016 at the Thiruvallur Sub Registrar Office. The document was a gift settlement deed executed on 24 March 2016 by A. Sekar in favour of D. Duraivelu.

The property was valued in the document at Rs.37,51,500, and the deed carried stamp duty of Rs.25,000. The District Registrar treated it as a settlement in favour of a person who was not a family member and assessed deficit stamp duty of Rs.2,75,120 and a penalty of Rs.80.

Relationship and family definition

The parties argued that the executant and recipient were the sons of brothers and that the deed was made without consideration between second class legal heirs. They also submitted a relationship chart and supporting records.

The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority rejected that argument because:

• The property belonged exclusively to A. Sekar through sale deed 715/1995.
• The property had not come from ancestors through inheritance.
• The stated family definition includes father, mother, husband, wife, son, daughter, grandchild, brother and sister.
• Where personal law permits adoption, the definition also covers the specified adoptive relationships.
• The relationship between the sons of two brothers was not included in that definition.

Stamp duty outcome

The final decision classified the deed under Article 58(a)(i) as a settlement in favour of a person who was not a family member. It recorded that the applicable stamp duty on the date of execution was 8 per cent.

Key outcomes were:

• Local body surcharge was not required for the deed.
• The District Registrar had incorrectly referred to surcharge when describing the deficit.
• Removing the surcharge did not change the calculated deficit stamp duty of Rs.2,75,120.
• The penalty of Rs.80 remained payable.
• The revision petition was dismissed and the District Registrar's order was modified to correct the surcharge reasoning.

Who is affected

The decision directly concerns A. Sekar, D. Duraivelu and document P66/2016. It is also relevant to parties presenting settlement deeds between relatives who do not fall within the family definition reproduced in the decision. The Sub Registrar was instructed to take appropriate action under section 47A if the stated property value was found to be understated.