P.Mu.3623/P1/2021, Final Order on Deed of Ratification
The Head of the Tamil Nadu Registration Department and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority issued proceedings P.Mu.3623/P1/2021 dated 22 September 2022, deciding the revision concerning pending document P48/2015 at the Padappai Sub-Registrar Office. The proceedings set aside the South Chennai District Registrar’s demand for deficient stamp duty and penalty, classified the document as a gift deed, and held that it carried the appropriate stamp duty under the concession for a document executed in favour of a local authority.
What the proceedings decide
Proceedings P.Mu.3623/P1/2021 dated 22 September 2022 concern a Deed of Ratification executed on 25 March 2015 and kept pending as document P48/2015 at the Padappai Sub-Registrar Office. The document ratified gift deed 4189/2007, which had been executed in favour of the St Thomas Mount Panchayat Union.
The South Chennai District Registrar had treated the ratification as a transfer under Article 23 of the Indian Stamp Act. The District Registrar demanded deficient stamp duty of Rs.1,85,988 and a penalty of Rs.4,012, although the document carried stamp duty of Rs.100.
Why the classification was changed
The Head of the Tamil Nadu Registration Department and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority examined the revision petition, written arguments, original district file and submissions made at the hearing on 18 March 2022.
Key findings were:
- The original property owners had not been included as parties to the earlier gift deed.
- Their agent later executed the Deed of Ratification to confirm that gift.
- Section 4 of the Indian Stamp Act permits a supplementary deed for a sale, mortgage or settlement, but does not provide for a supplementary deed to a gift deed.
- The reference to mutual benefits concerned the use of public areas by people who had purchased plots in the layout. It did not establish that the persons executing the ratification received consideration.
- The District Registrar’s treatment of the document as a transfer under Article 23 was therefore not sustainable.
The Deed of Ratification was instead classified as a new gift deed under Article 33 of the Indian Stamp Act.
Stamp duty outcome and who is affected
Proceedings P.Mu.3623/P1/2021 found that the document was executed in favour of a local authority and qualified for the stamp duty concession under Government Order No. 455, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department, dated 23 April 1983. It was therefore held to bear the appropriate stamp duty, and the South Chennai District Registrar’s earlier order was set aside.
The decision directly affects the parties to pending document P48/2015, the St Thomas Mount Panchayat Union and the registration authorities handling it. It also explains the authority’s reasoning for treating this particular ratification of a gift as a gift deed rather than a transfer for consideration.
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
Did the authority uphold the deficient stamp duty demand of Rs.1,85,988?
No. The Head of the Tamil Nadu Registration Department and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority set aside the South Chennai District Registrar’s order demanding Rs.1,85,988 in deficient stamp duty and a penalty of Rs.4,012.
How was the Deed of Ratification classified?
The Deed of Ratification was classified as a new gift deed under Article 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, not as a transfer under Article 23.
Why was the reference to mutual benefits not treated as consideration?
The authority found that the benefit concerned the use of public areas by plot purchasers. It did not show that the persons executing the ratification received any consideration.
Was the Rs.100 stamp duty treated as sufficient?
Yes. Because the document was executed in favour of a local authority, the authority held that it qualified for the concession under Government Order No. 455 dated 23 April 1983 and carried the appropriate stamp duty.