Revision order on document P70/2016, Thamaraipatti Sub Registrar Office

What this document is

The proceedings of the Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai 28, dated 23.03.19, decide a revision petition filed under Section 56(1) of the Indian Stamp Act about document number P70/2016 of Thamaraipatti Sub Registrar Office. The dispute was about how stamp duty should be classified for a document titled "சம்மத உறுதிமொழிப்பத்திரம்" dated 27.07.2016.

What the dispute was about

The Madurai North District Registrar had earlier treated the document as a release in favour of a non family member under Article 55C and demanded deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,83,020 and penalty of Rs.180.

The revision petitioner, T. Sumathi, argued that:

• the document was only a consent document,
• the persons who signed it did not state that they had any right in the property,
• they also did not state that they were releasing any share in the property.

Property history considered in the decision

The proceedings record the following chain:

• the property originally belonged to P. Angammal,
• by will, it was given only to her sons P. Veerabhathiran and P. Arumugam, and her grandson V. Murugan,
• later, the heirs of P. Veerabhathiran and P. Arumugam, along with co owner V. Murugan and V. Murugan's wife M. Parameswari, sold the property to M. Saravanan through document number 3251/2006,
• M. Saravanan then sold it to T. Sumathi through document number 2964/2012.

The eight persons who executed the disputed document were described as daughters and descendants through daughters of P. Angammal.

What the authority decided

The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority found that:

• P. Angammal's will gave rights only to the named sons and grandson,
• the other heirs and their descendants had no right in the property,
• so the executants of document P70/2016 had no co ownership or preferential right in the property,
• because of that, the document could not be classified under Article 55C,
• it also could not be treated under Section 4 as a simple consent document, because it was written as consent to the later sale deed number 2964/2012, not to document number 3251/2006 executed by their relatives.

Why this matters

The proceedings say that release documents not covered by Articles 55B, 55C or 55D must be classified under Article 55A. On that basis, the authority concluded that this document was a release deed under Article 55A, dismissed the revision petition, and directed the Madurai North District Registrar to pass a corrected order.

For buyers and owners, the practical point is that a document called a consent or affidavit may still be treated as a release deed for stamp purposes if it is executed by persons with no property right and does not fit the claimed category.