RELEASE DEED
The Proceedings of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration, Chennai-600 028, D.Dis.No. 179/P1/2022 dated 20.1.2023, decide a revision petition about pending document No.P12/2018 at Sub Registrar Office, Konnur. The authority held that the document should not be treated as a non-family settlement, modified the District Registrar, Chennai North decision, and said the release is classifiable under Article 55D(i) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
What this document is
The Proceedings of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration, Chennai-600 028, D.Dis.No. 179/P1/2022 dated 20.1.2023, deal with a revision petition filed against the District Registrar, Chennai North order on a pending release deed, document No.P12/2018 of Sub Registrar Office, Konnur. The case concerns stamp duty classification for a release deed executed on 23.01.2018.
Who and what the release deed covers
The release deed names Mrs.C.Maheswari, wife of late Mr.S.Chidambaram, and Mrs.Y.Ramya, daughter of late Mr.S.Chidambaram, as executants, and Mr.C.Narendren, son of Mr.S.Chidambaram, as claimant.
Key facts recorded are:
- Title of document, Release Deed.
- Property value, Rs.2,68,00,014/-.
- Stamp duty borne by the document, Rs.25000/-.
- The document purports to release a 2/3 share over the Schedule B property in favour of the releasee.
- The property had originally been purchased in the name of M/s Guha Industries.
- The releasors and releasee were partners in that firm.
What was disputed
The Sub Registrar treated the document as a non-family settlement and sent it for further action. The District Registrar, Chennai North then classified it as settlement among non-family members and demanded deficit stamp duty of Rs.18,51,001/- and penalty of Rs.1999/-.
The revision petitioners argued that:
- They are family members.
- One releasor had retired from the partnership in 1993, so her part should fall under Article 55A.
- The other releasor continued as a partner, so her part should fall under Article 55D(i).
What the authority decided
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration said the District Registrar, Chennai North classification as settlement was unsustainable because the property was acquired in the name of a partnership firm, the partners had joint interest over it, and the document was in substance a release.
The authority then held that:
- Article 55A is a residual clause.
- A release by a partner in favour of another partner who is a family member falls under Article 55D(i).
- The document cannot be split and classified partly under Article 55A and partly under Article 55D(i).
- Stamp duty must be determined on the whole property that is the subject matter of the release, not by earmarking presumed individual shares.
Why this may matter to buyers and owners
This decision is relevant if a property stands in the name of a partnership firm and family members who are partners execute a release. The proceedings show that the registration authority may look at the nature of the partnership interest and the wording of the document, and may classify the release under Article 55D(i) rather than as a settlement.
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 agree that this document was a non-family settlement?
No. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration said the District Registrar, Chennai North conclusion treating it as a settlement was unsustainable.
Was the release deed allowed to be split between two different stamp duty articles?
No. The proceedings say the document cannot be classified partly under Article 55A and partly under Article 55D(i).
Why did the authority treat the whole property as the subject matter for stamp duty?
The proceedings rely on the Supreme Court view that each partner has an undefined interest in every property of the firm, and so stamp duty should be determined on the whole property under release, not by presuming separate earmarked shares.
Who were the parties named in the release deed?
The executants were Mrs.C.Maheswari, wife of late Mr.S.Chidambaram, and Mrs.Y.Ramya, daughter of late Mr.S.Chidambaram. The claimant was Mr.C.Narendren, son of Mr.S.Chidambaram.
