P.Mu.8305/P1/2022, Rectification Deed Revision Decision
The Tamil Nadu Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority issued proceedings number P.Mu.8305/P1/2022 on 15 September 2022, dismissing a revision petition concerning document P46/2021 at the Peelamedu Sub Registrar Office. The decision upheld the Coimbatore District Registrar’s classification of the rectification deed as a construction agreement and the resulting deficient stamp duty assessment of Rs.99,976.
What the proceedings decide
Proceedings number P.Mu.8305/P1/2022, issued on 15 September 2022 by the Tamil Nadu Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, concerns document P46/2021 pending at the Peelamedu Sub Registrar Office. Although described as a rectification deed, the document was treated as a construction agreement under provision 5(i) of the Indian Stamp Act.
The revision petition challenging that treatment was dismissed. The Coimbatore District Registrar’s deficient stamp duty assessment of Rs.99,976 was upheld.
Documents and parties involved
Document P46/2021 was executed on 12 March 2021. It was given by Mrs. B. Arumugam, also known as A. Kosalai, represented by agent Mr. S. Udayakumar, and received by Mrs. Vidhya Murali.
Key recorded details include:
- Document description: Rectification Deed.
- Construction value: Rs.1,00,07,600.
- Stamp duty carried by the document: Rs.100.
- Deficient stamp duty fixed by the District Registrar: Rs.99,976.
- Earlier construction agreement: document 2604/2020, registered on 28 August 2020.
Why it was treated as a construction agreement
Document P46/2021 stated that it corrected flat number 3A in the earlier construction agreement to flat number 3B. The petitioner argued that flat number 3A was merely a typing mistake and that flat number 3A had been allotted to Mrs. Manimala through document 429/2021.
The Inspector General found that the earlier construction agreement and the related sale deed both identified flat number 3A. The sale deed was later corrected to flat number 3B through rectification document 1975/2021, registered on 12 August 2021.
The decision concluded that document P46/2021 changed the property location from flat number 3A to flat number 3B and created contractual rights between the parties concerning flat number 3B. It was therefore not accepted as a correction of a simple typing error.
Who may be affected
Proceedings number P.Mu.8305/P1/2022 directly affects the parties to document P46/2021 and the related registration dispute. It also shows that a document labelled as a rectification deed may be classified according to the rights and property changes it actually creates, rather than its title alone.
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 rectification deed accepted as only a typing correction?
No. The authority found that it changed the identified flat from number 3A to number 3B and created contractual rights concerning flat number 3B.
How much deficient stamp duty was upheld?
The deficient stamp duty assessment upheld by the authority was Rs.99,976.
What happened to the revision petition?
The Tamil Nadu Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority dismissed the revision petition and upheld the Coimbatore District Registrar’s decision.
Does calling a document a rectification deed determine its stamp classification?
Not in this case. The authority considered the effect of the document and classified it as a construction agreement because it changed the flat and created contractual rights concerning flat number 3B.
