P.Mu. 19620/P1/2022, Supplementary Lease Deed Revision Order
The Head of the Tamil Nadu Registration Department and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority issued proceeding P.Mu. 19620/P1/2022 on 8 November 2022, deciding a revision petition concerning pending document P2/2018 at the Bargur Sub Registrar Office. The proceeding sets aside the Krishnagiri District Registrar's classification of the supplementary lease deed as a new lease and directs a revised order treating it as having the characteristics of both an affidavit and a release.
What the proceeding decides
Proceeding P.Mu. 19620/P1/2022 of the Head of the Tamil Nadu Registration Department and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority reviews the stamp duty decision for pending document P2/2018 at the Bargur Sub Registrar Office. The document is a Supplementary Lease Deed executed on 15 December 2017.
The Krishnagiri District Registrar had classified the document as a new lease and determined deficient stamp duty and penalty of Rs.31,570. The document carried stamp duty of Rs.100. The revision proceeding sets aside the District Registrar's decision and directs the District Registrar to issue a revised order based on a different classification.
Background of the lease
The Tamil Nadu Government had granted a lease to G. Jayapalan for 20 years, from 10 November 2008 to 9 November 2028. The original lease was registered as document 3494/2008 at the Bargur Sub Registrar Office on 19 November 2008.
After G. Jayapalan died, the supplementary deed was executed following a request from his wife, J. Sivakami. The revision petition argued that the supplementary deed covered only the remaining period of the existing lease and did not create a fresh lease.
Key findings
- The original lease wording included the lessee's heirs, executors, administrators, legal representatives and assigns where the context permitted.
- Based on that wording and the Supreme Court decisions considered, the lease rights for the remaining term passed by operation of law to G. Jayapalan's wife and three sons.
- The supplementary deed did not newly create those inherited rights.
- The wife and three sons had obtained the lease rights jointly, but the three sons signed a document under which J. Sivakami alone would hold the full lease rights.
- The transfer of the sons' interests to their mother enlarged her leasehold right.
- The document therefore had two characteristics, an affidavit under Article 4 and a release under Article 55A of the Indian Stamp Act.
Who is affected
Proceeding P.Mu. 19620/P1/2022 directly concerns J. Vinoth Kumar, J. Sivakami, the other registered holders, the Tamil Nadu Government and the Krishnagiri District Registrar. Its reasoning is also relevant when an original lease expressly includes heirs and a later document gives one heir the interests jointly inherited by several heirs.
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 supplementary deed treated as a new lease?
No. Proceeding P.Mu. 19620/P1/2022 rejected the District Registrar's classification of the document as a new lease.
Did J. Sivakami inherit the lease alone?
No. The proceeding found that J. Sivakami and her three sons jointly obtained the remaining lease rights by operation of law. The sons then signed the supplementary deed so that J. Sivakami would hold the full lease rights.
Does the supplementary deed create a fresh 20 year lease?
No. The proceeding states that the document concerns only the remaining period of the original lease, which ran from 10 November 2008 to 9 November 2028.
Was the Rs.31,570 stamp duty and penalty determination confirmed?
No. The District Registrar's decision was set aside, and the District Registrar was directed to issue a revised order treating the document as having both affidavit and release characteristics. The proceeding does not state the amount to be fixed in the revised order.
