official guidance

D.Dis.No.10057/P1/2020, Revision Petition Order

The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, issued D.Dis.No.10057/P1/2020 on 22 August 2024, allowing a revision petition concerning Document No. P.15/2015 registered at the Sub Registrar Office, Ganapathy. The authority set aside the District Registrar, Coimbatore order and held that the deed was classifiable only as a mortgage under Article 40(b), without an additional classification as a power of attorney to sell immovable property for consideration under Article 48(e).

Category
Registration and stamp duty
Effective
1 January 2020
Pages
5
Status
In force
Open the source document The official copy, as published. Opens in a new tab.
Source document Preview loads as you scroll

What the order decides

D.Dis.No.10057/P1/2020, issued by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, on 22 August 2024, decides a stamp duty classification dispute concerning a deed of simple mortgage without possession. It allows the revision petition filed by Mr. V.S.J. Dinakaran and sets aside the District Registrar, Coimbatore order No.7601/B1/2015 dated 7 February 2020.

Document covered

The proceedings concern the following specific document:

  • Document No. P.15/2015 at the Sub Registrar Office, Ganapathy.
  • Date of execution, 27 March 2015.
  • Title, Deed of Simple Mortgage (Without Possession).
  • Executant, Mr. V.S.J. Dinakaran, son of V.S. Jayaraman.
  • Claimant, M/s. Religare Finvest Ltd.
  • Loan amount, Rs.7,55,36,323.
  • Stamp borne by the deed, Rs.40,000.

Why the classification was disputed

The District Registrar treated the document as covering two distinct matters, a mortgage under Article 40(b) and a power of attorney to sell immovable property for consideration under Article 48(e). On that basis, the District Registrar determined deficit stamp duty of Rs.30,21,453 and a penalty of Rs.1,547.

The disputed clauses stated that possession would remain with the mortgagor, but the mortgagee could take possession and sell or cause a sale if default occurred under the loan agreement. The revision petitioner argued that these rights arose only after default and that the deed remained a simple mortgage without delivery of possession.

Reasoning and outcome

The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration found that the mortgagee's power to take possession or sell was conditional upon default. The authority relied on CCRA cum IGR order No.24049/P1/2016 dated 2 June 2016, which had found similar powers were not absolute and final and did not amount to a power of attorney for consideration.

The deed was therefore classified only under Article 40(b). The additional Article 48(e) classification was rejected, the District Registrar's decision was set aside, and the revision petition was allowed.

Who is affected

The decision directly affects Mr. V.S.J. Dinakaran, M/s. Religare Finvest Ltd., and the stamp classification of Document No. P.15/2015. It also records how the authority assessed mortgage clauses that permit possession or sale only after borrower default.

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 this mortgage treated as giving possession to the lender?

No. The deed stated that possession would remain with the mortgagor. The mortgagee could take possession only if the borrower or mortgagor defaulted.

Did the authority treat the sale clause as a separate power of attorney?

No. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration found that the power was conditional on default and was not absolute and final, so Article 48(e) did not apply.

What happened to the deficit stamp duty and penalty determined by the District Registrar?

The District Registrar's order, which determined deficit stamp duty of Rs.30,21,453 and a penalty of Rs.1,547, was set aside when the revision petition was allowed.

Does this decision apply to every simple mortgage in Tamil Nadu?

The proceedings decide the classification of Document No. P.15/2015. The authority also referred to an earlier order concerning a similar document when assessing the conditional power to sell.