Official guidance, Tamil Nadu land law
Revision Order on Ashok Nagar Pending Document No. 10/2015
The Tamil Nadu Registration Department, through the Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, issued Proceedings No. 22206/P1/2016 on 20 November 2019 concerning the stamp duty classification of a release deed between two brothers. It decided that the jointly owned underlying land qualified as a release, while the first-floor building owned exclusively by the releasing brother was a transfer for consideration, and directed the District Registrar, Central Chennai, to issue a revised assessment.
What the proceedings decide
Proceedings No. 22206/P1/2016, issued on 20 November 2019 by the Tamil Nadu Registration Department through the Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, decide a revision petition under section 56(1) of the Indian Stamp Act. The dispute concerned pending document No. 10/2015 at the Ashok Nagar Sub-Registrar Office.
The document was a release deed dated 20 January 2015 from D. Rajagopalan to his brother D. Ranganathan. It recorded consideration of Rs. 3,50,00,000 and carried stamp duty of Rs. 25,000.
Property and ownership examined
The property comprised 5,300 square feet of land and buildings. An earlier partition had given the brothers undivided interests in the land. It had also given D. Rajagopalan the right to construct on the first floor, while their parents held the other undivided share and ground-floor building during their lifetimes, with D. Ranganathan to receive that interest later.
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority found that:
- The brothers could be treated as co-owners of the underlying land because both received undivided interests under the same partition document.
- The first-floor building belonged exclusively to D. Rajagopalan.
- The parties could not be treated as co-owners of that first-floor building.
- The underlying land was therefore classifiable as a release under Article 55A of the Indian Stamp Act.
- The first-floor building was classifiable as a transfer with consideration under Article 23 of the Indian Stamp Act.
Revised stamp duty assessment
The District Registrar, Central Chennai, had previously demanded deficit stamp duty of Rs. 24,25,000 and a penalty of Rs. 25,000, totalling Rs. 24,50,000. That assessment treated the document as having both transfer and release elements based on the stated consideration.
Proceedings No. 22206/P1/2016 directed the District Registrar, Central Chennai, to apportion the consideration according to the market values of the land and building. The deficit stamp duty for the first-floor building must then be recalculated and a revised order issued. The revision petition was disposed of with this direction.
Who may find the reasoning relevant
The decision directly concerns the named Ashok Nagar document and parties. Its reasoning may also be relevant when a release deed covers property in which family members jointly own the land but one person separately owns a building or another component.
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 entire property treated as a sale or transfer?
No. The underlying land was treated as a release because the brothers were co-owners, while the first-floor building was treated as a transfer for consideration because it belonged exclusively to D. Rajagopalan.
Did the proceedings confirm the full deficit demand of Rs. 24,50,000?
No. Proceedings No. 22206/P1/2016 directed the District Registrar, Central Chennai, to apportion the consideration according to the market values of the land and building and recalculate the deficit stamp duty for the first-floor building.
Why was the first-floor building treated differently from the land?
The land had been allotted to the brothers in undivided shares, making them co-owners. The first-floor building belonged exclusively to the brother giving the release, so the parties were not co-owners of that building.
Does this decision directly govern every family release deed in Tamil Nadu?
The proceedings directly decide pending document No. 10/2015 at the Ashok Nagar Sub-Registrar Office. They examine the particular ownership history of the land and first-floor building in that document.
