Proceedings No. 21728/P1/2019, Revision of Partition Deed P126/2015
The Head of the Tamil Nadu Registration Department and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority issued Proceedings No. 21728/P1/2019 dated 4 June 2024 on a revision petition concerning partition deed P126/2015 at the Thiruvalangadu Sub Registrar Office. The authority directed the District Registrar to examine the previous deeds and encumbrance certificate for every property item and issue a revised decision on the applicable stamp duty classification.
What the proceedings concern
Proceedings No. 21728/P1/2019 of the Head of the Tamil Nadu Registration Department and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority concern an unregistered partition deed dated 26 October 2015, numbered P126/2015 at the Thiruvalangadu Sub Registrar Office. The parties were M. Munusamy, V. Mallika, V. Shanmugam and V. Suresh.
The deed allotted Schedule A properties to M. Munusamy and Schedule B properties to the wife and sons of the late M. Velu. M. Munusamy and M. Velu were brothers.
Earlier stamp duty decision
The Kancheepuram District Registrar had classified the deed under Indian Stamp Act entry 58(a)(i), as an arrangement involving persons who were not family members for that entry. The deed carried stamp duty of ₹50,020. The District Registrar determined deficient stamp duty of ₹4,60,884 and a penalty of ₹16.
M. Munusamy filed a revision petition. He argued that the properties had been purchased in his name using joint family funds and the earnings of joint family members, and that the document should be treated as a family partition.
Findings and directions
Proceedings No. 21728/P1/2019 record the following findings:
- Most properties covered by the deed had been purchased in M. Munusamy's name under earlier documents.
- One property, measuring 0.84 cent in survey number 20/13 under Schedule A item 14, had previously been settled by M. Munusamy on M. Velu through document number 2410/2009.
- The properties could not be treated as inherited from a parent or ancestor merely because they were said to have been purchased from the brothers' earnings.
- The cited departmental clarification about partition among heirs of deceased parents did not apply.
- Properties allotted to M. Munusamy that were already in his name under earlier documents would not attract stamp duty through this deed.
- Property previously settled on M. Velu but allotted back to M. Munusamy, and property belonging to M. Munusamy but allotted to M. Velu's heirs, were to be considered as an exchange under Indian Stamp Act entry 31.
The District Registrar was instructed to verify the earlier registered documents and encumbrance certificate for each property item and then issue a revised decision. The proceedings do not state a final revised amount of stamp duty or penalty.
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 this decision cancel the deficient stamp duty demand of ₹4,60,884?
The proceedings do not state that the entire demand is cancelled. They direct the District Registrar to examine each property item and issue a revised decision.
Was the deed accepted as a family partition between family members?
No. The authority found that the cited clarification for property inherited from parents or ancestors did not apply to properties said to have been purchased from the brothers' earnings.
Which properties were found not to attract stamp duty through this deed?
The Schedule A properties allotted to M. Munusamy that were already in his name under previous documents were found not to attract stamp duty through the deed.
What must the District Registrar check before issuing the revised decision?
The District Registrar must closely examine the previous registered documents and the encumbrance certificate for every property item covered by partition deed P126/2015.
