ப.மு.எண் 930/P1/2018, ஆவண எண் P.97/2015 குறித்த சீராய்வு இறுதி ஆணை

What the order covers

Order number P.Mu.No. 930/P1/2018 dated 30 July 2018 concerns a deed dated 15 May 2015 and presented as a partition deed at the Villivakkam Sub-Registrar Office. It was kept pending as document P.97/2015. The deed stated a value of Rs. 2,00,00,000 and carried stamp duty of Rs. 1,00,000.

The Sub-Registrar acting at District Registrar level classified the document as a partition among persons outside the recognised family category and demanded deficit stamp duty of Rs. 7,64,200 under section 40(1)(b). M.G. Rahamathulla sought revision under section 56(1).

Property and claimed oral gifts

The property originally belonged to Mohamed Ghouse under sale deed 3996/1969. After his death, Rahima Bee and Rahamathulla divided 27.5 cents equally through partition deed 750/1979.

The later deed stated that parts of these properties had already been transferred through oral gifts, or oral Hiba. It allocated different schedules among Rahamathulla, Attaullah Baig, S. Frasadulla Baig and other participants.

Key findings

The Registration Department reached the following conclusions:

• A valid oral gift required evidence of a declaration by the donor, acceptance by the recipient and delivery of possession. The order relied on the Supreme Court decisions quoted in the record.
• The revision applicant did not provide the requested patta copies showing that the recipients had obtained title records following the oral gifts. A handwritten chitta copy in Mohamed Ghouse's name was provided instead.
• No written arguments or further patta evidence were filed after additional time was allowed.
• Schedule E and Schedule F, claimed to have been orally gifted by Rahamathulla to his sister's sons, were treated as being transferred through the 2015 deed itself. They were classified under section 58a(i) as settlements to persons outside the recognised family category.
• Plot No. 1A, measuring 1,700 square feet and claimed to have been orally gifted by Rahima Bee to Rahamathulla, was similarly treated as transferred by Rahima Bee's heirs through the deed and classified under section 58a(i).
• Plot No. 1F remained with Rahamathulla. Because the deed caused no transfer or partition of that property, the order treated it as a mere declaration for which no stamp duty arose.

Who is directly affected

Order number P.Mu.No. 930/P1/2018 directly concerns the ten executants of document P.97/2015 and the properties listed in its schedules. It also records the evidence considered necessary when a deed relies on an earlier oral Hiba to explain present ownership.