Proceedings Pa.Mu.8305/P1/2022 on Rectification Deed P46/2021
The Inspector General of Registration, Tamil Nadu Registration Department, and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai, issued Proceedings Pa.Mu.8305/P1/2022 dated 15 September 2022, dismissing a revision petition concerning pending document P46/2021 at the Peelamedu Sub Registrar Office. The proceedings uphold the Coimbatore District Registrar’s decision to treat the rectification deed as a construction agreement and confirm deficient stamp duty of Rs.99,976.
What the proceedings decide
Proceedings Pa.Mu.8305/P1/2022 dated 15 September 2022 were issued by the Inspector General of Registration, Tamil Nadu Registration Department, and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai. They decide a revision petition filed by S. Udayakumar under section 56(1) of the Indian Stamp Act against the Coimbatore District Registrar’s decision dated 11 January 2022.
The revision petition was dismissed. The classification of pending document P46/2021 as a construction agreement under Article 5(i) of the Indian Stamp Act was upheld, together with deficient stamp duty of Rs.99,976.
Document and parties affected
Pending document P46/2021 at the Peelamedu Sub Registrar Office is titled “Rectification Deed” and was written on 12 March 2021. It was executed by B. Arumugam alias A. Kosalai, represented by S. Udayakumar, in favour of Vidya Murali.
Key figures recorded in the proceedings are:
- Construction value: Rs.1,00,07,600.
- Stamp duty carried by the document: Rs.100.
- Deficient stamp duty fixed by the Coimbatore District Registrar: Rs.99,976.
The decision directly affects the parties to document P46/2021. Its reasoning may also be relevant to parties using a rectification deed to change the flat identified in an earlier construction agreement.
Why the revision was rejected
Proceedings Pa.Mu.8305/P1/2022 record that the earlier construction agreement, document 2604/2020 dated 28 August 2020, identified the flat as 3A. The revision petitioner argued that this was only a typing error and that flat 3A had later been allotted to Manimala through document 429/2021 dated 3 February 2021.
The Inspector General found that document 2604/2020 had been registered about five months before document 429/2021. The related sale deed, document 2605/2020 dated 28 August 2020, also identified flat 3A. That sale deed was later changed to flat 3B through rectification deed 1975/2021 registered on 12 August 2021.
The Inspector General concluded that document P46/2021 changed the location from flat 3A to flat 3B and created the contractual right concerning flat 3B between the parties. It was therefore properly classified as a construction agreement rather than merely a correction of a typing error.
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 rectification deed accepted as only a typing correction?
No. The Inspector General concluded that document P46/2021 changed the identified flat from 3A to 3B and created contractual rights concerning flat 3B.
How much deficient stamp duty was confirmed?
The deficient stamp duty confirmed for document P46/2021 was Rs.99,976.
What happened to S. Udayakumar’s revision petition?
The revision petition was dismissed. The Coimbatore District Registrar’s classification of the document as a construction agreement under Article 5(i) of the Indian Stamp Act was upheld.
Which registration document is directly affected?
The proceedings directly concern pending document P46/2021 at the Peelamedu Sub Registrar Office, written on 12 March 2021.
