Refusal for registration revision order on Document No. P.253/2010
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai, in proceedings Pa.Mu.15441/P1/2015 dated 17.05.2023, decided a revision petition about a partition deed presented at Joint Sub Registrar Office No. 2, Dindigul as pending document P.253/2010. The decision says the parties had no pre existing ownership right in the property because an earlier settlement had already dedicated it for the benefit of Thadikombu Sri Soundiraraja Perumal temple festival purposes, so the document could not be treated as a family partition or family settlement and had to be classified as a transfer of rights.
What this document is
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai, in proceedings Pa.Mu.15441/P1/2015 dated 17.05.2023, passed a final order on a revision petition under the Indian Stamp Act concerning pending document P.253/2010 at Joint Sub Registrar Office No. 2, Dindigul. The document presented for registration was titled a partition deed, dated 10.11.2010.
What the dispute was about
The property document was presented as a partition among named family members. The District Registrar, Dindigul, had already treated it as involving deficient stamp duty and had classified different shares as settlement between family members and settlement involving a non family member, because one party, திருமதி. ஜெயந்திமாலா, was found not to fall within the definition of family.
The revision petitioner argued that:
- திருமதி. ஜெயந்திமாலா signed because her husband திரு. விஜயரெங்கன் was unwell.
- திருமதி. சீதாலட்சுமி had received common family funds.
- According to various orders of the Registration Department, the pending partition document was among family members.
- The pending document should not be returned.
What the Inspector General found
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority examined the revision petition, the District Registrar's original file and the earlier settlement document numbered 3596/1917.
From that earlier settlement, the authority found that:
- the income from the property had been set apart for conducting the Chithirai Pournami festival of Thadikombu Sri Soundiraraja Perumal,
- a building was to be constructed on the property for that purpose,
- the executants and their heirs were not free to cancel the arrangement,
- the property and its income were not to be encumbered or alienated,
- if there were no heirs to continue the charity, the temple authorities were to take and manage the property.
Key decision
Because of those earlier terms, the authority held that the persons in the 2010 document did not have ownership or co ownership over the property. It also held that they had no pre existing right to divide it as co owners.
Key conclusions:
- the District Registrar's treatment of the document under Article 58 as an arrangement was not acceptable,
- the document could not be treated as a partition based on existing co ownership,
- the document had to be classified as a transfer of rights under Section 2(10) and Article 23 (Residue Article) of the Indian Stamp Act.
Who this affects
This is most relevant if you are dealing with temple related endowment property, old settlement documents, or family documents presented as partition deeds. It shows that if an earlier document has already tied the property to a religious or charitable purpose and restricted alienation, later heirs may not be treated as having a divisible ownership right for registration and stamp duty purposes.
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 2010 document accepted as a family partition deed?
No. The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority held that the parties had no pre existing ownership right to divide the property, so it could not be treated as a partition based on co ownership.
Why did the authority say the parties had no ownership right in the property?
The earlier settlement document numbered 3596/1917 showed that the property income was dedicated to the Thadikombu Sri Soundiraraja Perumal festival, that a building was to be put up for that purpose, and that the property was not to be alienated or otherwise dealt with freely by the heirs.
Did the authority agree with the District Registrar's classification under Article 58?
No. The final order says the District Registrar's classification of the document under Article 58 as an arrangement was not acceptable.
How was the document finally classified?
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority decided that the document should be classified as a transfer of rights under Section 2(10) and Article 23 (Residue Article) of the Indian Stamp Act.
