Final Revision Order on Villivakkam Document P.97/2015
The Head of the Tamil Nadu Registration Department issued P.Mu.No. 930/P1/2018 on 30 July 2018 as a final order on M.G. Rahamathulla's revision petition under section 56(1) of the Indian Stamp Act concerning Villivakkam Sub-Registrar document P.97/2015. The order reviews an earlier demand for ₹7,64,200 in deficit stamp duty and decides how parts of the deed should be classified when the claimed oral gifts were not supported by evidence.
What the revision covers
P.Mu.No. 930/P1/2018 of the Tamil Nadu Registration Department concerns a deed dated 15 May 2015 and presented as a partition deed at the Villivakkam Sub-Registrar Office. It was kept pending as document P.97/2015.
The deed stated a value of ₹2,00,00,000 and bore stamp duty of ₹1,00,000. The Sub-Registrar acting at District Registrar level treated it as a partition among persons who were not family members for stamp purposes and demanded deficit stamp duty of ₹7,64,200. M.G. Rahamathulla sought revision of that decision.
Property and ownership background
The Tamil Nadu Registration Department examined the earlier title records and the claims made in the deed:
- Mohamed Ghouse acquired 27.5 cents in survey number 232/1A2 through sale deed 3996/1969.
- After his death without making another arrangement, the property passed jointly to Rahima Bee and M.G. Rahamathulla.
- Partition deed 750/1979 divided the land equally, giving 13.75 cents to each.
- The 2015 deed claimed that later transfers had already occurred through oral gifts, known as oral Hiba.
Findings on the oral gifts
P.Mu.No. 930/P1/2018 considered Supreme Court decisions stating that a valid gift requires a declaration by the donor, acceptance by or for the recipient, and delivery of possession. The revision petitioner did not provide the requested patta copy or written submissions after being given time, and the Registration Department found no adequate documentary evidence proving the claimed oral gifts.
The resulting findings include:
- The Schedule E and Schedule F properties claimed to have been orally gifted by M.G. Rahamathulla to Attaullah Baig and S. Frasadulla Baig were treated as being transferred through the 2015 deed itself. They were classified under provision 58a(i) as an arrangement in favour of persons who were not family members for stamp purposes.
- Plot No. 1F retained by M.G. Rahamathulla involved no transfer or partition. It was treated as a mere declaration, with no stamp duty arising on that part.
- Plot No. 1A, measuring 1,700 square feet, was claimed to have been orally gifted by Rahima Bee to M.G. Rahamathulla. Without supporting evidence, it was treated as a transfer through the deed by Rahima Bee's heirs and classified under provision 58a(i) as an arrangement involving a person who was not a family member for stamp purposes.
The supplied text does not state a recalculated final stamp duty amount following these classifications.
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 P.Mu.No. 930/P1/2018 apply to every partition deed in Tamil Nadu?
The order decides a revision concerning the specific Villivakkam Sub-Registrar document P.97/2015 and its claimed oral gifts. The supplied text does not state that it applies generally to every partition deed.
Why were the claimed oral Hiba transfers not accepted?
The Tamil Nadu Registration Department found that the petitioner had not produced adequate evidence proving the oral gifts. The requested patta copy and written submissions were also not filed within the time allowed.
Was stamp duty imposed on the property retained by M.G. Rahamathulla?
No stamp duty was found to arise for Plot No. 1F retained by M.G. Rahamathulla because the order treated that part as a mere declaration involving no transfer or partition.
Did the order confirm a final deficit stamp duty of ₹7,64,200?
₹7,64,200 was the deficit stamp duty demanded by the Sub-Registrar acting at District Registrar level. The supplied text gives revised classifications for parts of the deed but does not state a recalculated final amount.
