Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M.S. Ramesh, J.
D. Balan – Appellant
Vs.
Inspector General of Registration – Respondent
Writ Petition (MD) No. 17257 of 2013 and M.P (MD) No. 1 of 2013
Decided On : 19-12-2016
Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, 1908 – Rule 160 – Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Sections 55, 56 – Stamp Duty – Properties comprised in T.S. were originally vested with M/s. I. Bahrudeen, I.Rafeeq and I.Abdul Salam. – The aforesaid three persons constituted a partnership firm under the name and style of Shan Theatre through a partnership deed – Subsequently, the petitioner and eight others were inducted into the said partnership firm as partners through a partnership deed – As per the recitals in the partnership deed, the property bearing No.27 Natham Road, Dindigul, valued at Rs.9 lakhs was shown as the share capital of the said three persons. – Petitioner was the Managing Partner of the said Shan Theatre which was subsequently renamed as Vijay Theatre. – Aforesaid three persons had relinquished their respective rights in the partnership firm through a retirement deed by which they had received a sum of Rs.9 lakhs towards their share in the firm. – Second respondent by his proceedings had directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.12,75,251/- towards deficit stamp duty by calculating the market value of the properties situated at Door No.27, Natham Road, Dindigul thereby treating the said document as a conveyance deed. – Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had preferred an appeal under Section 56(1) of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 before the first respondent. – Said appeal was partly allowed by setting aside the proceedings of the second respondent. – However, it was held that the value of the property has to be calculated as eight shares and the value of three shares out of eight shares has to be calculated for the purpose of levying stamp duty under Section 55-D of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. – Pursuant to the order of the first respondent, the second respondent had passed a revised order whereby the deficit stamp duty was calculated at Rs.6,37,476/- and deficit registration fee at Rs.70,726/-. – Aggrieved against the orders of the first and second respondents, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. – Held, Release deed was also registered in Book No.4 instead of Book No.1. – It would be appropriate to refer to Rule 160 of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, 1908 which provides that when the document is registered in a wrong office, the Registering Officer shall advise the party to apply to the Registrar for a fresh registration in the proper office and when such a direction is so issued, the Sub Registrar shall register the document without levying of any fee and in the endorsement of presentation shall refer to the orders of the Registrar. – Registering Officer who had originally received the document shall also forward to the concerned Sub Registrar, a copy of the document. – As such, there is no impediment on the part of the registering authorities to entertain registration of the present document though the same has been presented before the Sub Registrar, Chathirapatti instead of Sub Registrar Office Nagalnaickenpatti. – Impugned orders passed by the first and second respondents are quashed. – The third respondent is directed to register the release deed in Book No.1 by calculating the deficit stamp duty in the light of the above observations, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. – Writ Petition Allowed
M.S. Ramesh, J.
The brief facts of the petitioner's case is as follows:-
The properties comprised in T.S. Nos.73/4 and 73/1A, Natham Road, Dindigul were originally vested with M/s. I. Bahrudeen, I.Rafeeq and I.Abdul Salam. The aforesaid three persons constituted a partnership firm under the name and style of Shan Theatre through a partnership deed dated 07.03.1988. Subsequently, the petitioner and eight others were inducted into the said partnership firm as partners through a partnership deed dated 27.03.2003. As per the recitals in the partnership deed, the property bearing No.27 Natham Road, Dindigul, valued at Rs.9 lakhs was shown as the share capital of the said three persons. The petitioner was the Managing Partner of the said Shan Theatre which was subsequently renamed as Vijay Theatre. The aforesaid three persons had relinquished their respective rights in the partnership firm through a retirement deed dated 23.10.2008 by which they had received a sum of Rs.9 lakhs towards their share in the firm. The second respondent by his proceedings dated 08.11.2010 had directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.12,75,251/- towards deficit stamp duty by calculating the market value of the properties situated at Door No.27, Natham Road, Dindigul thereby treating the said document dated 23.10.2008 as a conveyance deed. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had preferred an appeal under Section 56(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 before the first respondent. The said appeal was partly allowed on 10.05.2013 by setting aside the proceedings of the second respondent. However, it was held that the value of the property has to be calculated as eight shares and the value of three shares out of eight shares has to be calculated for the purpose of levying stamp duty under Section 55-D of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Pursuant to the order of the first respondent, the second respondent had passed a revised order dated 31.07.2013 whereby the deficit stamp duty was calculated at Rs.6,37,476/- and deficit registration fee at Rs.70,726/-. Aggrieved against the orders of the first and second respondents, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
2. Heard Mr. K.S. Shankar Murali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Alagadevan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the release deed enables releasing the rights of the retiring partners in the partnership firm and it should not be considered as a conveyance deed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, out of 12 partners, three partners retired from the said partnership firm after receiving a sum of Rs.9 lakhs and therefore, the appropriate stamp duty payable for the above release deed should only be Rs.72,000/- along with registration fee of Rs.9,000/- and therefore, he would submit that the claim of the second respondent towards the deficit stamp duty at Rs.12,75,251/- is incorrect.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that at the time of audit, the District Registrar of the Registration Department, Palani had directed the Assistant Executive Engineer, Madurai to value the properties for proper registration since the subject document is a release deed under Section 55-C of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. When the order in appeal was passed, it was observed that the release deed has been executed under Section 55.D(ii) for ?th share and consequently, the second respondent had correctly calculated the deficit stamp duty at Rs.6,37,476/- together with registration charges for a sum of Rs. 70,722/-. The Learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the first respondent and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.
6. On a perusal of the deed dated 23.10.2008, it is seen that I.Bahrudeen, I.Rafe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
