Proceedings on revision petition for Appointment in Execution of a power
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai, in proceedings P. Mu. 33988/P1/2016 dated 23.02.2023, decided a stamp duty revision about document P26/2014 registered at Pettai Sub Registrar Office. The proceedings cancel the Tirunelveli District Registrar's earlier view that the document was a settlement in favour of a non family member, and instead hold that it is an "Appointment in Execution of a power" because it only appoints an additional person for an already existing wakf and does not transfer property.
What this document is
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai, issued proceedings P. Mu. 33988/P1/2016 dated 23.02.2023 on a revision petition filed against the Tirunelveli District Registrar's order dated 23.06.2016. The case concerns document P26/2014 of Pettai Sub Registrar Office, titled "Naibu Muthavalli Appointment Deed", written on 22.09.2014.
What was in dispute
The Tirunelveli District Registrar had treated the document as an arrangement in favour of a person who is not a family member. On that basis, the District Registrar fixed a deficit stamp duty of Rs.54,894 and a penalty of Rs.200.
The parties to the document were:
- Executant, P. Mohamed Kamaludeen, son of Peer Mohamed Rowther
- Claimant, Abdul Kadar, son of Ahamed Ibrahim
- Property value shown, Rs.100
- Stamp duty borne by the document, Rs.100
What the revision petition said
At the personal hearing held on 30.11.2022 before the Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, the petitioner's advocate argued that the property in the case had already been dedicated as wakf.
The proceedings record that:
- a wakf had been created earlier through a document written in 1939 by Nabeesa Beevi,
- P. Mohamed Kamaludeen was acting as the muthavalli of that wakf,
- Abdul Kadar was appointed as the next muthavalli's functionary or Naibu Muthavalli,
- the document did not say that the property was being transferred to the Wakf Board, but it did refer to the already existing wakf and the performance of charitable acts from the income of the property.
Final decision
After examining the document wording and the copy of Tirunelveli Sub Registrar Office document No. 807/1939, the Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority found that the same properties had already been dedicated for charitable purposes. The proceedings say the 2014 document only appoints an additional person responsible for carrying out those duties.
Key findings are:
- the property had already been made wakf earlier,
- the 2014 document appoints a responsible person in relation to that existing wakf,
- no transfer of property took place under the 2014 document,
- the document should be classified as "Appointment in Execution of a power".
Because of that finding, the Tirunelveli District Registrar's earlier order was set aside, and the District Registrar was instructed to issue a revised order on that basis.
Who this may affect
This is useful to people dealing with wakf related appointment deeds, especially where a document appoints a muthavalli or Naibu Muthavalli for property already dedicated earlier. It shows that, in this case, the Registration Department treated the document as an appointment and not as a fresh transfer of property.
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 say the 2014 document transferred the property to another person?
No. The proceedings specifically state that no property transfer took place under the document. The finding was that it only appointed an additional person in relation to an already existing wakf.
What happened to the Tirunelveli District Registrar's earlier order?
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority cancelled the Tirunelveli District Registrar's earlier order and instructed the District Registrar to pass a revised order based on the new classification.
How was document P26/2014 finally classified?
The proceedings classify document P26/2014 as "Appointment in Execution of a power". This was based on the view that the property had already been dedicated earlier and the document only appointed a person to carry out responsibilities.
Why did the authority reject the view that this was an arrangement for a non family member?
The proceedings say the wording of the 2014 document and the earlier 1939 document showed that the property had already been made wakf for charitable purposes. Because the 2014 document only appointed a Naibu Muthavalli and did not create a new transfer, the earlier classification was not accepted.
