D.Dis No.37652/P1/2021, Review Petition on Pending Document No.P-45/2021
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, issued proceedings D.Dis No.37652/P1/2021 dated 16 February 2022, examining a revision petition about stamp duty on a settlement deed presented at the Joint II Sub Registrar Office, Chennai (Central). The dispute is whether the deed is a family settlement by a mother to her son or a settlement of partnership property in favour of a non-family member. The supplied text does not include the final decision on the revision petition.
What the proceeding covers
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, issued proceedings D.Dis No.37652/P1/2021 dated 16 February 2022 under section 56(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The proceeding examines a challenge to the Joint II Sub Registrar (District Registrar cadre), Chennai (Central), order concerning pending document No.P45/2021.
The document and stamp duty dispute
Pending document No.P45/2021 is a settlement deed presented on 16 April 2021. Mrs. Andal Damodaran is the executant and her son, Mr. D. Sathyanarayanan, is the claimant.
Key details recorded in the proceeding are:
- The property value stated in the deed is Rs.1,00,00,000.
- The deed bears stamp duty of Rs.25,000.
- The executant treated it as a settlement in favour of a family member under Article 58(a)(i) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
- The registering officer classified it as a settlement in favour of a non-family member under Article 58(a)(ii).
- The registering officer determined deficit stamp duty of Rs.6,75,000 and a penalty of Rs.5,000.
Why the classification was challenged
The settlement deed concerns part of the land and building at No.8, Rutland Gate. The deed states that Mrs. Andal Damodaran obtained the property from her mother in law under a registered will that was probated by the High Court of Madras. It also states that the property was developed through Kamatchi Enterprises and that part of the property allotted to Mrs. Andal Damodaran was being settled on her son.
The registering officer found that the larger property had been contributed to Kamatchi Enterprises, a partnership firm. The officer stated that no registered release deed or dissolution deed showed that the remaining property had become the individual property of Mrs. Andal Damodaran. An unregistered dissolution deed produced by the registrant did not contain immovable property details and was considered insufficiently stamped for admission as evidence.
Questions considered
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration considered:
- Whether the instrument could be classified as a release based on the Madras High Court decision cited by the petitioner.
- Whether property of the dissolved firm became property of the former partners under the unregistered dissolution deed.
- Whether the settlement should remain classified as one made by a firm in favour of an individual under Article 58(a)(ii).
The supplied text rejects the relevance of the cited release decision to this settlement deed, but ends during the discussion of section 48 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. It does not provide the final result of 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 executed by a mother in favour of her son?
Yes. The proceeding records Mrs. Andal Damodaran as the executant and her son, Mr. D. Sathyanarayanan, as the claimant.
Why did the Sub Registrar treat the deed as a non-family settlement?
The registering officer considered the property to remain partnership property because no registered release deed or dissolution deed established that it had become the individual property of Mrs. Andal Damodaran.
How much deficit stamp duty and penalty were demanded?
The registering officer determined deficit stamp duty of Rs.6,75,000 and a penalty of Rs.5,000.
Did the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority allow the revision petition?
The supplied text does not include the final decision. It ends while discussing how partnership accounts and property are dealt with after dissolution.
