P.Mu. No. 25641/P1/2020 dated 26 April 2022
The Head of the Tamil Nadu Registration Department issued Proceedings No. 25641/P1/2020 dated 26 April 2022, concerning a stamp duty revision petition for pending Sale Deed P3/2020 at the Triplicane Sub Registrar Office. The proceedings examine whether the deed contains two sales and therefore attracts additional stamp duty, but the supplied text ends before the final decision is stated.
What the proceedings cover
Proceedings No. 25641/P1/2020 dated 26 April 2022, issued by the Head of the Tamil Nadu Registration Department, reviews an order passed by the Triplicane Sub Registrar acting at District Registrar level. That earlier order treated pending Sale Deed P3/2020 as containing two separate sales and assessed deficient stamp duty of ₹6,26,444 and a penalty of ₹1,556.
The revision petition was filed by Tammanna Deepak and two others. A personal hearing was conducted by the Head of the Registration Department on 22 February 2022.
Sale deed and parties
Sale Deed P3/2020 was executed on 9 January 2020 and presented at the Triplicane Sub Registrar Office. Its stated details include:
- Vendors: Tammanna Deepak and Akshay Deepak.
- Third vendor and confirming party: The Union Company (Motors) Private Limited.
- Purchaser: Manjulatha Sanglecha.
- Property value: ₹1,13,50,000.
- Stamp duty carried by the document: ₹7,96,500.
The deed concerned an undivided share in the property and the building constructed on it.
Why two sales were considered
The Triplicane Sub Registrar treated the document as covering two transactions:
- A transfer of the undivided share from The Union Company (Motors) Private Limited to the first and second vendors.
- A later transfer of the undivided share and building from those vendors to Manjulatha Sanglecha.
The petitioners argued that a sale and construction agreement dated 27 July 2002, possession, payment, tax and utility record changes, and a registered lease showed that they had already obtained the property.
Department's reasoning in the supplied text
The Head of the Tamil Nadu Registration Department relied on section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The reasoning states that an agreement for sale does not by itself create an interest or charge in immovable property, and that changes in municipal, water, electricity or other records do not by themselves establish legal ownership.
The proceedings also distinguish earlier departmental circulars concerning an agreement holder who joins a sale deed merely as a confirming party. Here, the document stated that no registered sale deed had previously been executed in favour of the first and second vendors, while the original owner joined to confirm the purchaser's title.
The supplied text stops before the operative conclusion. It therefore does not show whether the additional stamp duty and penalty were finally confirmed, reduced or cancelled.
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 proceeding apply to every sale deed with a confirming party?
The supplied text does not establish a general rule for every confirming party. It distinguishes this deed because the first and second vendors claimed ownership under an earlier agreement even though no registered sale deed had been executed in their favour.
Can a sale agreement and possession alone prove ownership?
The proceedings state that, under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, an agreement for sale does not by itself create an interest or charge in the property. Possession and changes to tax or utility records were also treated as insufficient by themselves.
How much additional stamp duty and penalty were assessed?
The Triplicane Sub Registrar acting at District Registrar level assessed deficient stamp duty of ₹6,26,444 and a penalty of ₹1,556.
Was the additional stamp duty finally upheld?
The supplied text ends before the final operative decision. It does not state whether the assessment was confirmed, changed or cancelled.
