D.Dis.No. 2965/P1/2019, Revision Petition on Settlement Deed, 2023
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, issued proceedings D.Dis.No. 2965/P1/2019 dated 20 January 2023, examining a revision petition against deficit stamp duty and penalty demanded for settlement deed P212/2015 at the Sub Registrar Office, Thiruvottiyur. The proceedings state that property acquired in a partnership firm's name remains firm property after dissolution for settlement of accounts, but the supplied text ends before the final direction on the revision petition.
What the proceedings concern
Proceedings D.Dis.No. 2965/P1/2019 of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, concern a settlement deed executed on 28 December 2015. Mrs. D. Sakku bai executed the deed in favour of her son, Mr. M. D. Ravikumar, covering a 50 per cent undivided share of land and building described in Schedule B.
The document records:
- Pending document number P212/2015 at the Sub Registrar Office, Thiruvottiyur.
- Property value stated in the deed as Rs.75,00,000.
- Stamp duty already borne as Rs.25,000.
- A District Registrar demand for deficit stamp duty of Rs.5,75,000 and a penalty of Rs.1,000.
- A revision petition by Mrs. D. Sakku bai against that demand.
Why additional duty was demanded
The District Registrar, Chennai North, treated the deed as a non-family settlement under Article 58(a)(ii) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Although the executant and claimant were mother and son, the property had been purchased in the name of M/s R.K.B Transport, a partnership firm in which both were partners.
The District Registrar found that the firm had not transferred the property to Mrs. D. Sakku bai through a registered document. On that basis, the property was treated as belonging to the firm rather than as her individual property.
Reasoning recorded in the revision proceedings
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority considered whether dissolution of the partnership firm made its immovable property the individual property of the former partners. Referring to section 48 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, the proceedings state that firm assets continue to be treated as assets of the firm while accounts are settled and any residue is divided among partners.
The proceedings also refer to a High Court decision stating that, for classification as a settlement, the property must be the absolute property of the settlor. They indicate that a family relationship between the executant and claimant does not by itself make firm property eligible for treatment as a family settlement.
Who should pay attention
These proceedings are directly relevant to the named executant and claimant. They may also be useful to parties dealing with settlement deeds involving property acquired in a partnership firm's name, especially where the firm has dissolved but no registered transfer to an individual partner is identified. The supplied extract does not contain the final direction disposing of the revision petition.
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 settlement deed between family members?
Yes. Mrs. D. Sakku bai was the mother of Mr. M. D. Ravikumar. However, the District Registrar treated the deed as a non-family settlement because the property belonged to the partnership firm rather than absolutely to the mother.
How much additional stamp duty and penalty were demanded?
The District Registrar demanded deficit stamp duty of Rs.5,75,000 and a penalty of Rs.1,000.
Does dissolving a partnership automatically make its property the partners' individual property?
The proceedings state that, after dissolution, the assets remain assets of the firm for settling accounts and dividing any residue. They found that the property in question should be considered firm property.
What was the final result of the revision petition?
The supplied text does not include the concluding direction. It therefore does not establish whether the revision petition was allowed, dismissed or otherwise disposed of.
