PARTITION DEED
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai, in proceedings Pa.Mu.37464/P1/2021 dated 10.8.2022, decided a revision petition about pending document number P36/2021, PARTITION DEED, at Sembium Sub Registrar Office. The authority set aside the Sembium Sub Registrar's earlier order that had treated the document as a partition among non family members and held instead that the parties are co owners from the same family, mother and sons, so the document can be classified as a partition among family members.
What this document is
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai, proceedings Pa.Mu.37464/P1/2021 dated 10.8.2022 is a final order on a revision petition. It reviews the Sembium Sub Registrar's order on pending document number P36/2021, titled PARTITION DEED, written on 5.5.2021.
Who is involved
The document writers are:
- Tmt. Mary Abraham
- Thiru Bobby Abraham
- Thiru Ben Abraham
- Thiru Varghese Abraham
The property values shown are:
- Schedule B, one person getting it, Rs.40,00,000
- Schedule C, two persons getting it, Rs.40,00,000
- Schedule D, three persons getting it, Rs.40,00,000
What property was being divided
The order says the property was divided like this:
- Tmt. Mary Abraham, Schedule B, 1440 square feet undivided share out of 3600 square feet, and 1100 square feet building in the ground floor
- Thiru Bobby Abraham, Schedule C, 1440 square feet undivided share out of 3600 square feet, and 1100 square feet building in the first floor
- Thiru Ben Abraham, Schedule D, 720 square feet undivided share out of 3600 square feet, and 1100 square feet building in the first floor
The land was originally bought through separate sale deeds. Later, in 2008, one ground floor dwelling and two first floor dwellings were built. The order also records that Thiru Varghese Abraham had settled his 1/5 undivided share in favour of his father, Thiru Abraham Varghese, and that Thiru Abraham Varghese died on 14.6.2017 without making any arrangement for his 1/5 share.
What the dispute was
The Sembium Sub Registrar had treated the document as:
- a partition among non family members, and
- an arrangement in favour of a family member
On that basis, the Sembium Sub Registrar fixed a deficit stamp duty of Rs.2,10,000 and penalty of Rs.3,000. The document had carried stamp duty of Rs.75,000.
What the final decision says
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai, found that the parties should be treated as co owners. The order relies on Registration Department circulars dated 11.10.2000 and 7.1.2014, and a Madras High Court judgment cited in the text, to say that people who acquire undivided shares through separate documents are still co owners.
The final order also says that although the parties do not have the status of a Hindu joint family, their relationship still falls within the explanation of family under the provision cited in the text. Since they are mother and sons and are co owners, the document can be classified as a partition among family members. The earlier order of the Sembium Sub Registrar was therefore cancelled.
Why it matters
This is useful if you are dealing with a partition among relatives who hold undivided shares through separate documents. The order shows that, on these facts, separate purchase documents and non Hindu religion were not accepted as reasons to deny family partition treatment.
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 final authority agree with the Sub Registrar's higher stamp duty demand?
No. The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai, set aside the Sembium Sub Registrar's order that had fixed deficit stamp duty of Rs.2,10,000 and penalty of Rs.3,000.
Were the parties treated as family members or non family members?
The final order treated them as family members for this partition. It says they are mother and sons and that their relationship falls within the explanation of family mentioned in the text.
Does buying undivided shares through separate sale deeds stop people from being co owners?
No. The final order says that even if undivided shares were acquired through separate documents, the parties must still be regarded as co owners.
Why was religion discussed in this case?
The Sub Registrar had taken the view that because the parties were not Hindus, the partition should be treated differently. The final order rejected that reasoning and said that, even without Hindu joint family status, their relationship still fits the family explanation referred to in the text.
