Proceedings No. 21986/P1/2016, Final Order on Arcot Deed P61/2015

What the proceedings cover

Proceedings No. 21986/P1/2016 of the Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority concern document P61/2015 at the Arcot Sub-Registrar Office. The document, executed on 10 June 2015, was described as a partition deed involving cash of Rs.5,00,000 in Schedule A and immovable property valued at Rs.57,05,600 in Schedule B.

The deed allocated the Schedule A cash to five parties and the Schedule B immovable property to Anusuya Ammal. The property had earlier been allotted jointly to Anusuya and her sister Lokambal through partition document 518/1986. After Lokambal's death, her share passed through succession to her husband, children and later descendants.

Earlier stamp duty decision

The Arakkonam District Registrar had classified document P61/2015 under Article 58(a)(i) of the Indian Stamp Act. The District Registrar fixed deficit stamp duty of Rs.4,59,685 and a penalty of Rs.215, totalling Rs.4,59,900. The document had already borne stamp duty of Rs.30,020.

Anusuya challenged that decision through a revision petition. Her arguments included that the deed was a family partition, that departmental guidance applied, and that the Rs.5,00,000 was derived from the common immovable property.

Findings and final direction

The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority found that the relationships among all six parties did not fall within the Indian Stamp Act's stated definition of family for Article 58(a)(i). The departmental circular dated 11 March 2005 was also found inapplicable because the co-ownership arose through the earlier partition document rather than succession from a parent without an arrangement.

The authority also found that no evidence had been provided to show that the Rs.5,00,000 was common money derived from the immovable property.

Key conclusions were:

• The action had been taken under sections 33 and 40, not section 47A.
• Document P61/2015 was not treated as a family partition for the claimed concession.
• The transaction was classified as a release by the heirs of a deceased co-owner in favour of another co-owner under Article 55C.
• The District Registrar was directed to issue a corrected order based on that classification.
• The earlier District Registrar order and the revision petition were dismissed.

Who is affected

Proceedings No. 21986/P1/2016 directly affect the parties to Arcot Sub-Registrar document P61/2015 and the registration officials responsible for reassessing it. The final proceedings do not state the revised stamp duty amount.