Proceedings No. 11514/P1/2021 dated 18 September 2024
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority of the Tamil Nadu Registration Department issued Proceedings No. 11514/P1/2021 dated 18 September 2024 concerning the stamp duty classification of consent deed P1/2015 at the Paramakudi Sub-Registrar Office. The proceedings set aside Sivaganga District Registrar Order No. 1350/A1/2016 dated 29 January 2021, accepted the revision petition and treated the consent deed as an ancillary instrument under section 4 of the Indian Stamp Act.
What the proceedings decide
Proceedings No. 11514/P1/2021 dated 18 September 2024 decide a revision petition concerning pending document P1/2015 at the Paramakudi Sub-Registrar Office in the Sivaganga Registration District. The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority of the Tamil Nadu Registration Department classified the document as an ancillary instrument under section 4 of the Indian Stamp Act.
The proceedings set aside Sivaganga District Registrar Order No. 1350/A1/2016 dated 29 January 2021 and accepted the revision petition filed on 12 March 2021.
Document and property background
The disputed document was a consent deed executed on 31 December 2014 by T. Marimuthu in favour of Govindaraj. The property value recorded for the proceedings was Rs.42,770, based on the value stated in earlier sale deed No. 1833/2011. The consent deed carried stamp duty of Rs.20.
The property was described as ancestral property belonging to T. Marimuthu and his brother Shanmugam. Shanmugam had granted a power of attorney over the entire property to his wife, Maruthambal, through document No. 126/2002. Maruthambal later sold the property to Govindaraj through document No. 1833/2011.
T. Marimuthu was away when that sale deed was registered. He later executed the consent deed without receiving any consideration, confirming his consent to the earlier sale.
Stamp duty dispute
The Sivaganga District Registrar treated the consent deed as a conveyance under Article 23 of the Indian Stamp Act. The District Registrar considered that T. Marimuthu's one-half undivided interest passed to Govindaraj through the consent deed and demanded:
- Deficit stamp duty of Rs.79,352.
- Penalty of Rs.1,648.
The petitioners argued that ownership had already been transferred through sale deed No. 1833/2011 and that the consent deed did not create any additional transfer.
Reason for the final decision
Proceedings No. 11514/P1/2021 applied section 4 of the Indian Stamp Act, which addresses several instruments used to complete one sale, mortgage or settlement transaction. The authority concluded that a later instrument used to complete such a transaction can be treated as an ancillary instrument, with stamp duty of Rs.5 under the provision quoted in the proceedings.
The authority also relied on earlier Registration Department decisions treating consent deeds in similar circumstances as ancillary instruments. On that basis, the District Registrar's classification and demand were set aside.
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 consent deed treated as a fresh sale deed?
No. Proceedings No. 11514/P1/2021 classified consent deed P1/2015 as an ancillary instrument under section 4 of the Indian Stamp Act, rather than as a conveyance under Article 23.
What happened to the deficit stamp duty and penalty demanded by the District Registrar?
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority set aside the District Registrar's order that had demanded Rs.79,352 as deficit stamp duty and Rs.1,648 as penalty.
Why was the later consent deed considered ancillary?
The authority found that the consent deed was connected with completing the transaction under earlier sale deed No. 1833/2011. T. Marimuthu gave consent without receiving consideration, and the proceedings applied section 4 of the Indian Stamp Act.
Does the decision concern every consent deed in Tamil Nadu?
The decision directly concerns pending document P1/2015 at the Paramakudi Sub-Registrar Office. Its reasoning also refers to earlier Registration Department decisions that treated consent deeds in similar circumstances as ancillary instruments.
