ப.மு.எண் 18115/P1/2016, இறுதியாணை, 09.02.2017
The Tamil Nadu Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority issued Proceedings No. 18115/P1/2016 dated 9 February 2017, deciding a revision concerning the stamp duty classification of partition document P22/2015 at the Chinnadharapuram Sub Registrar Office, Karur. The authority found that treating Mr. M. Karthikeyan’s share as a partition between non-family members was not legally sustainable and directed the Karur District Registrar to issue a revised order.
What the proceedings decide
Proceedings No. 18115/P1/2016 dated 9 February 2017 concern a family partition deed presented for registration on 15 June 2015 at the Chinnadharapuram Sub Registrar Office, Karur. The deed carried stamp duty of Rs.35,000.
The Karur District Registrar had demanded additional payment comprising deficient stamp duty of Rs.87,490 and a penalty of Rs.510, totalling Rs.88,000. Mr. Karthikeyan and Mrs. M. Poongodi challenged that decision through a revision petition.
Property and parties covered
The partition involved property traced to Mr. Karuppanna Gounder and later inherited by his only heir, Mr. Muthusamy Gounder. After Mr. Muthusamy Gounder’s death, the property was jointly enjoyed by the document parties. The deed divided the property and family funds of Rs.2,00,000 among:
- Mrs. Valliammal, mother of the late Mr. Muthusamy Gounder.
- Mr. M. Shanmugam, his son through his first wife.
- Mrs. Poongodi, his second wife.
- Mr. M. Karthikeyan, his son through Mrs. Poongodi.
Original stamp duty classification
The Karur District Registrar treated the deed as having three different components:
- Mrs. Poongodi’s share was treated as a settlement to a person outside the family.
- Shares allotted to the first and second document parties were treated as a partition among family members.
- Mr. Karthikeyan’s share was treated as a partition among persons who were not family members.
The revision petition argued that Mr. Muthusamy Gounder married Mrs. Poongodi after his first wife died, and that Mrs. Poongodi and Mr. Karthikeyan were his Class I heirs.
Final finding and practical effect
The Tamil Nadu Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority considered death certificates and a certificate issued by the Anjur Village Administrative Officer concerning the remarriage. The authority found that Mr. Shanmugam and Mr. Karthikeyan were lawful heirs of Mr. Muthusamy Gounder.
The classification of Mr. Karthikeyan’s share as a partition between non-family members was therefore held to be unsustainable. The Karur District Registrar was instructed to issue a revised order. The supplied text does not state the revised amount payable.
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
Does this decision cancel the entire additional demand of Rs.88,000?
The supplied text does not cancel the full demand or state a revised amount. It directs the Karur District Registrar to issue a revised order based on the authority’s findings.
Why was Mr. Karthikeyan treated as a family member?
The authority found that Mr. Karthikeyan and Mr. Shanmugam were lawful heirs of the late Mr. Muthusamy Gounder. It therefore rejected the classification of Mr. Karthikeyan’s share as a partition between non-family members.
What evidence was considered about the second marriage?
The authority considered death certificates and a certificate dated 8 April 2016 from the Anjur Village Administrative Officer stating that Mr. Muthusamy Gounder remarried Mrs. Poongodi after his first wife died.
Does this proceeding automatically apply to every family partition deed in Tamil Nadu?
The proceedings decide the revision concerning document P22/2015 at the Chinnadharapuram Sub Registrar Office, Karur. The supplied text does not state that it changes the classification of every partition deed.
