D.Dis.No. 2965/P1/2019, Revision Petition on Pending Document No. P212/2015
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, issued D.Dis.No. 2965/P1/2019 dated 20 January 2023 to examine Mrs. D. Sakku Bai’s revision petition concerning the stamp duty classification of settlement deed P212/2015 at the Sub Registrar Office, Thiruvottiyur. The proceedings reason that property held by a dissolved partnership firm remains firm property for settlement of accounts and cannot be treated as the settlor’s absolute personal property merely because the settlor and claimant are mother and son. The supplied text ends before the final operative decision on the revision petition.
What the proceedings concern
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, issued D.Dis.No. 2965/P1/2019 dated 20 January 2023 concerning pending document P212/2015 at the Sub Registrar Office, Thiruvottiyur. Mrs. D. Sakku Bai filed the revision petition against the District Registrar, Chennai North’s demand for additional stamp duty.
The document under review was a settlement deed executed on 28 December 2015 by Mrs. D. Sakku Bai in favour of her son, Mr. M. D. Ravikumar. It covered a 50 percent undivided share in land and a building described in Schedule B.
Property and stamp duty details
The proceedings record the following details:
- Property value stated in the settlement deed: Rs.75,00,000.
- Stamp duty already borne by the document: Rs.25,000.
- Deficit stamp duty determined by the District Registrar: Rs.5,75,000.
- Penalty determined by the District Registrar: Rs.1,000.
- District Registrar’s classification: settlement in favour of a non-family member under Article 58(a)(ii) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
Why the classification was disputed
Mrs. D. Sakku Bai argued that she and Mr. M. D. Ravikumar were family members and that the document should not have been classified as a non-family settlement. Her counsel was heard on 22 December 2022.
The property had originally been acquired in the name of the partnership firm M/s R.K.B Transport, in which the settlor and claimant were partners. The firm was stated to have been dissolved by a deed dated 23 December 2015.
Reasoning recorded in the proceedings
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority examined whether dissolution made the firm’s property the personal property of its former partners. Referring to the rules for settling partnership accounts, the proceedings state that assets remain assets of the firm for settling accounts and dividing any residue.
The proceedings also cite a High Court decision stating that a settlement requires the property to be the settlor’s absolute property. On that reasoning, the mother and son relationship did not by itself make the deed a family settlement because the property was treated as belonging to the firm, not absolutely to Mrs. D. Sakku Bai.
The supplied extract stops before recording the final 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
Did the authority finally confirm the additional stamp duty demand?
The supplied text does not contain the final operative decision. It records the demand, the revision arguments and the authority’s reasoning, but ends before the final direction.
Why was a settlement from a mother to her son treated as a non-family settlement?
The District Registrar treated the property as belonging to the partnership firm rather than as the mother’s absolute property. The proceedings reason that the family relationship alone was insufficient when the property being settled belonged to the firm.
Does dissolution of a partnership automatically make its land the partners’ personal property?
The proceedings state that, even after dissolution, the firm’s assets remain firm assets for settling accounts and dividing any residue. They therefore treated the property in question as property of the firm.
How much additional stamp duty and penalty were demanded?
The District Registrar demanded deficit stamp duty of Rs.5,75,000 and a penalty of Rs.1,000. The settlement deed had already borne stamp duty of Rs.25,000.
