D.Dis.No. 24622/P1/2021, Revision Petition on Pending Document No. 508/2020
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, issued D.Dis.No. 24622/P1/2021 on 19 September 2023 to consider a revision petition concerning the stamp duty classification of Pending Document No. 508/2020 at the Joint I Sub Registrar Office, Chennai South. The proceedings find that the settled property must be treated as property of a partnership firm, rather than the absolute property of the parents who executed the settlement deed, and apply the reasoning used for a settlement in favour of non-family members.
What the proceedings cover
D.Dis.No. 24622/P1/2021 of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, concerns a settlement deed executed by Mr. S.V. Rangaparthasarathy and Mrs. S. Radha, also known as Radhalakshmi, in favour of their three sons. Each son was given a one-third undivided share in the scheduled property.
The deed was executed on 9 November 2020 and presented as Pending Document No. 508/2020 at the Joint I Sub Registrar Office, Chennai South. The property value was stated as Rs.1,09,62,320, and the document bore stamp duty of Rs.25,000.
Why additional stamp duty was demanded
The District Registrar, Chennai South, treated the deed as a non-family settlement under Article 58(a)(ii) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. A deficit stamp duty of Rs.22,77,090 and a penalty of Rs.2,910 were demanded.
The registering authorities considered the property to belong to the partnership firm, Unitech Engineering Industry, rather than to the parents individually. The revision petition challenged that conclusion.
Key findings
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration recorded the following points:
- The property was originally purchased jointly by Mrs. Andal, Mrs. Radha and Mr. K. Seshadri.
- The settlement deed itself stated that the property and superstructure were shown as assets of Unitech Engineering Industry.
- The absence of a registered document transferring the property to the partnership firm did not prevent it from being treated as firm property.
- After dissolution, partnership assets remain firm assets for settling accounts and allocating any residue among partners.
- The property therefore had to be considered property of the partnership firm, not the absolute property of the individual settlors.
- The proceedings relied on the Madras High Court decision in S.A. Kovil Nadar versus Inspector General of Registration, which stated that property settled under Section 2(24)(b) must be the settlor's absolute property.
Who may be affected
D.Dis.No. 24622/P1/2021 is relevant to partners and their family members where immovable property is recorded as a partnership asset. A parent-child relationship alone may not support family settlement treatment when the property belongs to a firm. The supplied text ends during the concluding sentence and does not reproduce the complete operative direction on the revision petition.
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 settlement deed between parents and their sons?
Yes. The executants were the father and mother, and the three claimants were their sons, each receiving a one-third undivided share.
Why was the deed treated as a non-family settlement despite the relationship?
The authorities considered the property to be an asset of Unitech Engineering Industry, not the parents' absolute property. The proceedings state that family settlement treatment requires the property to belong absolutely to the settlor.
What deficit stamp duty and penalty were demanded?
The District Registrar, Chennai South, demanded deficit stamp duty of Rs.22,77,090 and a penalty of Rs.2,910.
Does an unregistered dissolution deed automatically make partnership property the personal property of former partners?
The proceedings say that even after dissolution, the firm's assets remain firm assets for settling accounts and dividing any residue. They therefore treated the property as partnership property.
