D.Dis No.37652/P1/2021, Review Petition on Settlement Deed
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, issued D.Dis No.37652/P1/2021 dated 16 February 2022 to review the stamp duty classification of pending settlement deed P45/2021 at the Joint II Sub Registrar Office, Chennai (Central). The proceedings examine whether property connected with a dissolved partnership could be settled as individual property in favour of a family member, or should be treated as firm property settled in favour of a non-family member. The supplied text ends during the legal analysis and does not contain the final ruling.
What the proceedings cover
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, considered a revision petition filed by Mrs. Andal Damodaran against the Joint II Sub Registrar, Chennai (Central). The dispute concerns settlement deed P45/2021, presented on 16 April 2021, under which property valued at Rs.1,00,00,000 was settled in favour of her son, Mr. D. Sathyanarayanan.
The deed carried stamp duty of Rs.25,000 as a family settlement. The Sub Registrar instead classified it as a settlement in favour of a non-family member under Article 58(a)(ii) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and determined:
- Deficit stamp duty of Rs.6,75,000.
- Penalty of Rs.5,000.
Why the classification was disputed
The property formed part of a larger property developed through Kamatchi Enterprises, a partnership firm. The Sub Registrar considered the remaining unsold property to be firm property because no registered release deed or dissolution deed had been produced. The Sub Registrar also found that the unregistered dissolution deed did not identify immovable property and was not duly stamped.
Mrs. Andal Damodaran argued that:
- The partnership was dissolved on 31 December 2020, with the dissolution recorded by the Registrar of Firms, Chennai (North), on 23 March 2021.
- A partnership share is movable property.
- Partnership property is held by the partners rather than by the firm as a separate legal person.
- Earlier court decisions and registration proceedings supported treating relevant transactions between partners as releases rather than conveyances.
- Former partners had resigned or retired before the settlement.
Questions examined
D.Dis No.37652/P1/2021 considered:
- Whether the transaction could be classified as a release based on the cited Madras High Court decision.
- Whether an unregistered dissolution deed caused the property to become the individual property of former partners.
- Whether the property remained firm property, making the settlement one from the firm to an individual under Article 58(a)(ii).
The authority found that the cited release decision concerned co-owners releasing their shares to other existing co-owners. It also noted that the present document was framed as a settlement, not a release. The supplied extract ends while discussing settlement of partnership accounts and does not show the final decision on the revision petition.
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 cancel the deficit stamp duty and penalty?
The supplied text does not contain the final ruling. It records the Sub Registrar's demand for Rs.6,75,000 in deficit stamp duty and Rs.5,000 as penalty, followed by the authority's legal analysis.
Why was a settlement from a mother to her son treated as a non-family settlement?
The Sub Registrar considered the property to remain partnership firm property because no registered release deed or dissolution deed had been produced. On that basis, the transaction was treated as a settlement by the firm in favour of an individual.
What stamp duty had already been paid on the settlement deed?
The settlement deed carried stamp duty of Rs.25,000. The executant treated it as a settlement in favour of a family member.
Does the proceeding establish that an unregistered partnership dissolution transfers immovable property to the partners?
The supplied text raises that issue for consideration but does not provide the final conclusion. It records competing arguments about whether the property became individual property or remained property of the firm.
