Proceedings No. 54513/P1/2018, Partition Deed Stamp Duty Appeal
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority of the Tamil Nadu Registration Department issued Proceedings No. 54513/P1/2018 dated 14 December 2022 to consider an appeal against the Tiruppur District Registrar's stamp duty decision concerning partition deed No. 35/2016 registered at the Peelamedu Sub-Registrar Office. The supplied text records the property history, competing classifications and appeal arguments, but ends before stating the final operative decision.
What the proceedings cover
Proceedings No. 54513/P1/2018 concern document No. 35/2016 at the Peelamedu Sub-Registrar Office. The document is described as a partition deed executed on 4 January 2016 by K. Raghupathi, K. Lakshmipathi, K. Chitralekha, K. Vijayashankar and K. Subiksha.
The three schedules were each valued at Rs.25,00,000, and the document bore stamp duty of Rs.75,000. Following a departmental audit, the Tiruppur District Registrar treated parts of the transaction differently under the Indian Stamp Act:
- Part was classified as a partition among family members under Article 45(a).
- Part was classified as a transfer of rights under Article 23.
- Deficient stamp duty of Rs.77,54,730 was fixed.
- Deficient registration fee of Rs.15,50,950 was also confirmed.
Property and ownership issues considered
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority reviewed earlier settlement deeds, inheritance and the later division of the land and apartment buildings. The source records that Thiruvenkadasamy had separately settled portions on his daughter Savithriammal and grandsons Raghupathi, Kesavan and Lakshmipathi. An unsettled 27 cents later passed by inheritance.
A construction agreement with Coromandel Engineering Company was entered into on 5 July 1996. The proceedings considered whether separately owned properties had thereby been treated as common family property. They also examined how the interests of Kesavan and Savithriammal passed to their respective heirs.
Appeal arguments and review
The appellants argued that Hindu family members could convert separate properties into common property and that a family partition should not be treated as a transfer. They also challenged the District Registrar's use of Rs.7,000 per square foot for all survey numbers.
A personal hearing was held on 19 April 2022. K. Lakshmipathi and the appellants' lawyer appeared and submitted written arguments. The reviewing authority discussed whether every relationship among parties 3, 4 and 5 and the other parties fell within the stated definition of “family” under Article 58(a)(i), referring to a Madras High Court decision that treated that definition as exhaustive.
Who is affected
Proceedings No. 54513/P1/2018 directly concern the five parties to document No. 35/2016 and the property covered by its schedules. The supplied extract does not reveal whether the appeal was allowed, rejected or partly allowed, so it cannot establish the final amount payable.
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 appeal cancel the deficient stamp duty demand?
The supplied text does not state the final operative result. It records the review and reasoning but ends before saying whether the demand was confirmed, reduced or cancelled.
How much deficient stamp duty had the Tiruppur District Registrar fixed?
The Tiruppur District Registrar fixed deficient stamp duty of Rs.77,54,730. The source also records deficient registration fee of Rs.15,50,950.
Why was part of the partition deed treated as a transfer?
The departmental audit considered that properties already received through separate settlement deeds were being divided through the later document. The District Registrar therefore classified part under Article 23 as a transfer of rights and part under Article 45(a) as a family partition.
Does the document cover every family partition in Tamil Nadu?
The proceedings specifically concern document No. 35/2016 at the Peelamedu Sub-Registrar Office and its named parties. They examine the parties' ownership history and whether their relationships fit the stated definition of family.
