Partition Deed Stamp Duty Revision Order
The Tamil Nadu Registration Department's Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority issued Proceedings No. 37464/P1/2021 on 10 August 2022, allowing a revision concerning partition deed P36/2021 at the Sembiam Sub Registrar Office. The proceedings set aside the earlier order demanding deficit stamp duty of Rs.2,10,000 and a penalty of Rs.3,000, and classified the deed as a partition among family members under Article 45(a) of the Indian Stamp Act.
What the proceedings cover
Proceedings No. 37464/P1/2021, dated 10 August 2022, decide a revision petition filed by Mrs. Mary Abraham against the stamp duty assessment for pending document P36/2021 at the Sembiam Sub Registrar Office. The document is a partition deed executed on 5 May 2021 by Mrs. Mary Abraham and her sons, Mr. Bobby Abraham, Mr. Ben Abraham and Mr. Varghese Abraham.
The property is in Poompuhar Nagar, 11th Street, Kolathur Village. The parties had acquired undivided shares through separate sale deeds. Mr. Varghese Abraham later settled his one fifth share on his father, Mr. Abraham Varghese, who died on 14 June 2017 without making an arrangement for that share.
Property divided by the deed
Partition deed P36/2021 allocated the property as follows:
- Mrs. Mary Abraham received Schedule B, comprising a 1,440 square foot undivided land share and a 1,100 square foot ground floor building.
- Mr. Bobby Abraham received Schedule C, comprising a 1,440 square foot undivided land share and a 1,100 square foot first floor building.
- Mr. Ben Abraham received Schedule D, comprising a 720 square foot undivided land share and a 1,100 square foot first floor building.
- Schedules B, C and D were each valued at Rs.40,00,000.
- The deed carried stamp duty of Rs.75,000.
Earlier stamp duty decision
The Sembiam Sub Registrar, acting at District Registrar level, treated part of the transaction as a partition among persons who were not family members under Article 45(b), and part as a family arrangement under Article 58(a)(i). The Sub Registrar assessed deficit stamp duty of Rs.2,10,000 and a penalty of Rs.3,000.
That classification was based partly on the parties having acquired shares through separate deeds and on their not being Hindus.
Final finding and effect
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority found that the parties were co-owners even though they acquired their undivided shares through separate documents. The authority also found that the parties were members of one family, namely a mother and her sons, and that their religion did not remove their relationship from the meaning of family considered in the proceedings.
The partition deed was therefore classified as a partition among family members under Article 45(a). The earlier assessment of deficit stamp duty and penalty was set aside. The decision directly concerns pending document P36/2021 and its parties.
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
Does the order cancel the additional stamp duty and penalty on partition deed P36/2021?
Yes. Proceedings No. 37464/P1/2021 set aside the earlier order that assessed deficit stamp duty of Rs.2,10,000 and a penalty of Rs.3,000.
Why was the deed treated as a family partition?
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority found that the parties were co-owners and belonged to one family, consisting of a mother and her sons. The deed was therefore classified under Article 45(a).
Can people who bought undivided shares through separate sale deeds still be co-owners?
For the property considered in Proceedings No. 37464/P1/2021, the authority concluded that acquiring undivided shares through separate documents did not prevent the parties from being treated as co-owners.
Did the parties being non-Hindus prevent family partition treatment?
No. The authority found that although the parties did not have Hindu joint family status, their relationship as a mother and sons still came within the family relationship considered in the proceedings.
