P.Mu. 46422/P1/2019, Appeal on Partition Deed No. 3378/2017
The Tamil Nadu Registration Department, through the Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, issued proceedings number P.Mu. 46422/P1/2019 dated 19 June 2024 concerning an appeal over the stamp duty classification of partition deed number 3378/2017, registered at Joint I Sub Registrar Office, Vellore. The proceedings examine whether different allocations under the deed should be treated as a family partition, sale or family arrangement, following a deficit stamp duty determination of Rs.43,90,900. The supplied text ends during the examination of the property history and does not include the final decision on the appeal.
What the proceedings cover
The Tamil Nadu Registration Department proceedings number P.Mu. 46422/P1/2019 dated 19 June 2024 concern partition deed number 3378/2017 at Joint I Sub Registrar Office, Vellore. The deed was executed on 15 March 2017 among ten members of a family and covered cash, immovable properties and Sri Ambika Motor Transport.
The deed carried stamp duty of Rs.1,00,350. The Vellore District Registrar later determined deficit stamp duty of Rs.43,90,900 under section 33A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act. T. Sivakumar appealed against the District Registrar's order dated 21 August 2019.
Why the classification was disputed
The Vellore District Registrar did not treat every allocation as a family partition. The classifications recorded in the proceedings included:
- Sale under Article 23 for certain transfers.
- Partition under Article 45(a) for certain family shares.
- An arrangement between family members under Article 58(a)(i) for money paid from T. Sivakumar's own funds.
- A mixed classification for the B Schedule, with part treated as a transfer and part as a partition.
The District Registrar considered that the sons of T. Sivakumar could not claim shares in ancestral property while their father was alive. Allocations made to them were therefore examined as transfers rather than ordinary partition shares.
Property and money covered
The deed listed Rs.81,00,000 as A Schedule family cash, properties valued at Rs.10,20,60,000 in B Schedule, properties valued at Rs.11,31,54,875 in C Schedule and an item valued at Rs.45,00,000 in D Schedule.
The proceedings identify three origins for the assets:
- Properties acquired by the late N. Thangavelu Mudaliar, which later passed to his heirs through intestate succession and became jointly owned.
- Property acquired by T. Sarojammal and later settled on her son, T. Sivakumar, under document number 4573/2011.
- Family common cash.
Who may be affected
Proceedings number P.Mu. 46422/P1/2019 directly concern the parties and assets in partition deed number 3378/2017. They are also relevant to professionals examining a deed that combines inherited joint property, separately owned property, cash payments and allocations to descendants, because those components were considered separately for stamp duty classification.
The supplied text records hearings held on 31 January 2024 and 20 February 2024 and summarises the parties' arguments and ownership history. It does not contain the concluding portion stating whether the appeal was allowed, rejected or partly accepted.
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 partition deed number 3378/2017 treated entirely as a family partition?
No. The District Registrar classified different parts as a sale under Article 23, a partition under Article 45(a), and a family arrangement under Article 58(a)(i).
How much deficit stamp duty was demanded?
The Vellore District Registrar determined deficit stamp duty of Rs.43,90,900. The deed had carried stamp duty of Rs.1,00,350.
What did the appellant argue about the D Schedule asset?
The appellant argued that the D Schedule asset was a bus permit and that stamp duty could not be imposed on it under the Indian Stamp Act.
Does the supplied text say whether the appeal succeeded?
No. The supplied text ends while examining the ownership and allocation of the assets, before the final decision on the appeal is stated.
