Proceedings in Pa.Mu. No. 927/P1/2018 dated 22.03.2024

What this document is

The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai, issued Pa.Mu. No. 927/P1/2018 dated 22.03.2024 on a revision petition relating to pending document P30/2015 in Selaiyur Sub Registrar Office. The proceedings review an earlier order of the South Chennai District Registrar, dated 28.03.2016, which had treated a correction deed as a sale deed and demanded deficit stamp duty and penalty.

What the dispute was about

The document under review was titled "Pizhaithiruthal" and was written on 17.02.2015.

Key facts recorded are:

• The earlier sale deed was document No. 5077/2011.
• The correction deed carried stamp duty of Rs.100.
• The South Chennai District Registrar classified it as a sale deed under Article 23.
• The South Chennai District Registrar fixed deficit stamp duty and penalty.
• The revision petition was filed by Mr. Pravin M Jain and Mr. Naresh M Jain.

What mistake the correction deed tried to fix

The proceedings say the earlier sale deed already transferred an undivided share in property in Rajakilpakkam village. The correction deed was written to fix two mistakes in that earlier sale deed:

• In the agent details, only Mr. Naresh M Jain had been shown and signed, though both Mr. Pravin M Jain and Mr. Naresh M Jain had authority under the power documents mentioned in the sale deed.
• In the western boundary description, one survey number had been typed wrongly.

The proceedings specifically say there was no mistake or variation in the details of the principals who gave authority, and the power document numbers 421/2011 and 496/2005 were correctly mentioned in the earlier sale deed.

What the authority decided

The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai, found that:

• The wrong boundary survey number was not a matter affecting stamp duty.
• The earlier sale deed had already completed the property transfer.
• The later document only recorded consent or completion by the other authorised agent who had not signed earlier.
• The same principle used for consent documents by remaining executants also applies to general power agents appointed by owners.

On that basis, the proceedings held that the document can be classified as a "consent document" under Section 4 of the Indian Stamp Act, not as a fresh sale deed.

Why it matters to buyers and owners

This is useful if a registered sale deed is later followed by a document that only corrects a clerical mistake, adds a missing authorised signatory, or fixes a boundary survey number without changing the transfer itself. In such a case, the Registration Department may treat the later document as a consent document rather than a new sale, based on the facts recorded here.