Stamp Duty Appeal on Partition Deed No. 10959/2016
Proceedings No. 53066/P1/2019 dated 14 July 2022, issued by the Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Tamil Nadu Registration Department, decides R. Mahalakshmi's appeal concerning deficient stamp duty on partition deed No. 10959/2016 registered at the Chengalpattu Joint Sub Registrar Office No. 2. It dismisses both the District Registrar's earlier order and the appeal petition, directs the Chengalpattu District Registrar to issue a revised order, and classifies most of the deed as a family partition while treating one property item as an arrangement for a person outside the defined family relationship.
What the proceedings cover
Proceedings No. 53066/P1/2019 dated 14 July 2022, issued by the Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Tamil Nadu Registration Department, concerns a partition deed dated 14 September 2016. The deed was registered as document No. 10959/2016 at the Chengalpattu Joint Sub Registrar Office No. 2.
The Chengalpattu District Registrar had taken action under section 33A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act and fixed deficient stamp duty of Rs.2,72,300. R. Mahalakshmi appealed against that determination. A personal hearing was conducted on 19 April 2022, when her lawyer appeared and filed written arguments.
How the properties were classified
Proceedings No. 53066/P1/2019 records the following conclusions:
- Schedule A and Schedule B consisted of family common cash amounts received by the first and second parties.
- Schedule C, item 2, and the Schedule D property had belonged to Ponnusamy through patta No. 91 and later passed jointly to the document parties by inheritance.
- Schedule A, Schedule B, Schedule C item 2, and Schedule D were therefore classified under Article 45(a) of the Indian Stamp Act as a partition among family members.
- The authority relied on Tamil Nadu Registration Department Circular No. 5450/C2/2005 dated 11 March 2005, which states that the heirs of a deceased brother or sister may be treated as family members in specified inherited-property partitions.
Separate treatment of Schedule C, item 1
Proceedings No. 53066/P1/2019 found that Schedule C, item 1, belonged exclusively to P. Ethirajulu Ammal under patta No. 3. The property was given through the deed to R. Mahalakshmi, who was Ethirajulu Ammal's grandson's wife and had no pre-existing right in it.
The authority concluded that this relationship did not fall within the explanation of family under Article 58(a)(i) of the Indian Stamp Act. Schedule C, item 1, was therefore treated as an arrangement in favour of a person who was not a family member for that provision.
Who is affected
Proceedings No. 53066/P1/2019 directly affects the parties to document No. 10959/2016 and the Chengalpattu District Registrar. The District Registrar was instructed to issue a revised order based on the classifications recorded in the proceedings. The document also shows how inherited co-owned property and property held exclusively by one person were treated differently for stamp duty purposes.
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 entire partition deed treated as a family partition?
No. Schedule A, Schedule B, Schedule C item 2, and Schedule D were treated as a family partition under Article 45(a). Schedule C item 1 was treated separately as an arrangement for a person outside the family definition under Article 58(a)(i).
Why was Schedule C, item 1, treated differently?
It belonged exclusively to P. Ethirajulu Ammal under patta No. 3 and was given to her grandson's wife, R. Mahalakshmi, who had no pre-existing right in it. The authority found that their relationship was not covered by the relevant family definition.
What deficient stamp duty had the Chengalpattu District Registrar fixed?
The Chengalpattu District Registrar had fixed deficient stamp duty of Rs.2,72,300 under section 33A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act.
What happened after the appeal was considered?
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority dismissed both the District Registrar's earlier order and the appeal petition, and instructed the Chengalpattu District Registrar to issue a revised order based on the recorded conclusions.
