Registration of deed of partition is required not between members of family but joint purchasers of lands.

The petitioners are questioning the legality and correctness of the order of the second respondent dated 27.12.2005.

2. The second respondent is the Joint SubRegistrar No. 2 of the Taluk Office, Tenkasi.

3. The first respondent is the District Registrar, Tenkasi.

4. The case of the petitioners is that they are friends and they purchased punja lands with standing coconut trees through five documents.

5. The details are given below:

No. Date & No. of Documents Sold by Survey No. and Extent Value Rs.

1. • 21.11.96

• 570/97 Gurusamy and others • 125/IE Acre 0.Cent 50

• 125/1G 0.51 61,000.00

2. • 31.3.96

• 1037/99 Sankariah and others • 125/1B Acre 0.Cent 27

• 125/1B Acre 0.Cent 15

• 125/1E Acre 0.Cent 10

• 125/1 Well right with 3HP motor and room including Coconut tree thereat 38,000.00

3. 21.5.99 Krishnammal 125/1C Acre 0.Cent 20 with 1/8 Well right, motor and pump room 13,200.00

4. • 5.2.01

• 223/01 Ramasamy and others • 125/1B Acre 0.Cent 34

• 125/1A Acre 0.Cent 51

• 125/IE Acre 0.Cent 20

• 125/1D Acre 0.Cent 25 with Well right half share in motor and pump room 75,000.00 5. • 19.6.02

• 1936/02 V. Kumar and others • 125/1F Acre 0.Cent 52

• 125/1D Acre 0.Cent 06

• Well, motor and pump room 70,000.00

6. It is stated that they decided to have partition among themselves to avoid future litigation.

7. Partition deed for registration was presented before the second respondent on 8.8.2005 and the same was registered as Document No. 1888 of 2005 by the second respondent.

8. It is further stated that the value of the properties is arrived at Rs. 5,54,850/- and they have completed the registration formalities, but the second respondent has withheld the same document having registered and thereafter issued notice directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 81,665/-as deficit stamp duty treating the properties as house sites and the second respondent also threatened that he would take action against the petitioner under Rule Para 744 of the Registration Manual and Sections 27 and 64 of Registration Act if the deficit stamp duty is not paid and the same is questioned by the petitioners in this writ petition.

9. The second respondent filed detailed counter denying all the material allegations. It is stated that on inspection of the fields, it is noticed that some of the lands are just adjacent to the residential colonies and they are not agricultural lands, as such they are classified as house sites and valued accordingly. All other lands are classified as agricultural lands.

10. The specific plea of the second respondent is that the lands in Survey Nos. 125/1A, 125/1B and 125/1E alone are classified as house sites and the remaining fields were confirmed as agricultural land and accordingly, they are valued.

11. It is stated that the material facts are suppressed by petitioners and hence the petitioners are punishable under Section 64 of the Stamp Act.

12. It is further stated that partition deed was presented for registration on 17.8.2005. The stamp duty payable for partition deed is regulated under Article 45 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act 1899 and accordingly the partition deed of the properties of the three petitioners are valued as Rs. 1,75,200/-each for the first and second petitioners and Rs. 1,77,600/- for the third petitioner and Rs. 26,850/-for all. Thereby, the total value comes to Rs. 5,54,850/-.

13. It is stated that as per Article 45 of the Stamp Act, Rupee 1 is to be collected for every Rs. 100/-for a part thereof as the market value of the property which is under partition subject to the maximum of Rs. 10,000/- per share if the instrument of the partition is among family members. In any other case, the stamp duty is as per bottomry bond No. 16 for the amount of the value for the separated share or shares of the property.

14. The contention of the respondents is that the petitioners have prepared the document on stamp paper of Rs. 5,515/- as if the partition deed is effected among family members and it is misleading hen