Proceedings No. 34039/P1/2019 on Document P69/2017
The Tamil Nadu Registration Department's Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority issued Proceedings No. 34039/P1/2019 dated 28 March 2024, dismissing an appeal concerning Document P69/2017 at the Kanniwadi Sub-Registrar Office and upholding the Dindigul District Registrar's stamp duty decision. The authority found that transferring property held exclusively by a father to his son, who had no existing right in it, in return for payment should be treated as a sale rather than a release between family members.
What the proceedings decide
Proceedings No. 34039/P1/2019 of the Tamil Nadu Registration Department concern a document described as a release of share, executed on 27 January 2017 and registered as Document P69/2017 at the Kanniwadi Sub-Registrar Office. The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority dismissed the appeal filed by S. Sasikumar and upheld the Dindigul District Registrar's decision.
Document and audit findings
Document P69/2017 involved property valued at Rs.75,00,000. Subramani alias R. Subramanian and J. Shanthi stated that they were releasing their two-thirds share to S. Sasikumar after receiving Rs.4,50,000.
The Sub-Registrar initially accepted the document as a release between family members and registered it with stamp duty of Rs.25,000. A departmental audit in July 2017 raised the following points:
- The property stood in the father's name.
- Money was received for transferring the property to S. Sasikumar.
- The transaction should have been treated as a transfer of ownership in property valued at Rs.75,00,000.
- The audit identified deficient stamp duty of Rs.5,00,000 and a deficient registration fee of Rs.71,000.
The Dindigul District Registrar later confirmed the loss of revenue through proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act.
Reason for dismissing the appeal
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority examined the appeal, the District Registrar's original file, the document wording and arguments presented at the hearing.
The authority found that the property had come to Subramani alias R. Subramanian through a partition involving his father. Based on the court decisions quoted in the proceedings, property received through partition and held exclusively by a person does not give that person's children an existing ownership right during the person's lifetime.
Because S. Sasikumar had no pre-existing right in the property, and the transfer was made after receiving payment, the authority concluded that the transaction should be treated as a sale. The family relationship between the parties did not by itself make the transaction eligible for treatment as a family release.
Who may be affected
Property owners, buyers and document professionals may be affected where a document is called a family release but the recipient has no existing share in the property. Payment for transferring exclusively owned property may also lead the Registration Department to examine the document as a sale, regardless of its title.
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 S. Sasikumar's appeal allowed?
No. Proceedings No. 34039/P1/2019 dismissed the appeal and upheld the Dindigul District Registrar's decision.
Why was the document treated as a sale instead of a family release?
The authority found that the father held the property exclusively, the son had no pre-existing right in it, and payment was received for the transfer. On those facts, the transaction was treated as a sale.
What stamp duty shortage was identified?
The Dindigul District Registrar determined deficient stamp duty of Rs.5,00,000. The departmental audit also identified a deficient registration fee of Rs.71,000.
Does every transfer between a parent and child qualify as a family release?
No such general rule is stated in the proceedings. The decision shows that the recipient's existing ownership right and the nature of the transfer must be examined, not merely the family relationship.
