Proceedings No. 34039/P1/2019, Appeal on Document No. P69/2017
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai, issued Proceedings No. 34039/P1/2019 dated 28 March 2024, dismissing S. Sasikumar's appeal concerning pending Document No. P69/2017 at the Kannivadi Sub Registrar Office. The authority upheld the Dindigul District Registrar's decision because property exclusively obtained by a person through partition was transferred to his son for consideration, who had no pre-existing right, and the transaction was therefore treated as a sale rather than a family release.
What the proceedings decide
Proceedings No. 34039/P1/2019 dated 28 March 2024 decide an appeal under the Indian Stamp Act concerning Document No. P69/2017 at the Kannivadi Sub Registrar Office. The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority dismissed the appeal and upheld Dindigul District Registrar Order No. 3947/A1/2018 dated 19 April 2019.
The decision concerns the classification of one specific property document and the resulting stamp duty and registration fee. It does not state that every transfer between a parent and child must be treated in the same way.
Document and parties
Document No. P69/2017 was written on 27 January 2017 and described as a release of share rights. The executants were R. Subramanian, also named Subramani, and his daughter J. Shanthi. The recipient was his son, S. Sasikumar.
Key recorded details were:
- Property value, Rs.75,00,000.
- Stamp duty carried by the document, Rs.25,000.
- The document stated that the executants released their claimed two thirds share to S. Sasikumar after receiving Rs.4,50,000 in cash.
- The Sub Registrar originally accepted the document as a release between family members.
Audit and additional liability
A departmental audit in July 2017 treated the transaction as a transfer of ownership in property valued at Rs.75,00,000. The audit recorded deficient stamp duty of Rs.5,00,000 and a deficient registration fee of Rs.71,000. Proceedings were then taken by the District Registrar, who confirmed the loss.
The District Registrar classified the document as a release in favour of a person outside the relevant family category under Article 55-C and determined deficient stamp duty of Rs.5,00,000.
Reason for dismissing the appeal
Proceedings No. 34039/P1/2019 found that the property had come to R. Subramanian through a partition document. Based on the court decisions considered, the authority concluded that children do not acquire rights during the lifetime of a person who holds such property exclusively after partition.
Because S. Sasikumar had no pre-existing right in the property and the transfer was made after payment of consideration, the authority considered the transfer to be a sale. The appeal was therefore dismissed and the District Registrar's decision was upheld.
Who may be affected
The decision directly affects S. Sasikumar and the parties to Document No. P69/2017. It is also relevant when examining a document labelled as a family release where the recipient has no existing property right and pays consideration for the transfer.
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 document accepted as a family release?
The Kannivadi Sub Registrar initially accepted it as a release between family members and accepted stamp duty of Rs.25,000. The later audit and proceedings did not accept that treatment.
Why was the transfer treated as a sale?
The authority found that R. Subramanian exclusively held the property obtained through partition, while his son had no pre-existing right during his lifetime. Since the son received the property for consideration, the transfer was treated as a sale.
What deficiencies were recorded by the audit?
The departmental audit recorded deficient stamp duty of Rs.5,00,000 and a deficient registration fee of Rs.71,000.
Did the appeal cancel the District Registrar's decision?
No. The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority dismissed the appeal and upheld the Dindigul District Registrar's decision.
