SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 317

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. Subramaniam, K. Rajasekar, JJ.
Nirmal A Jhabakh & Another - Appellant
Vs.
The District Registrar, Stone House, Udhagamandalam Road & Another - Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 480 of 2022
Decided On : 08-03-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :M. Rajasekar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:P. Anandakumar, Government Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified the applicability of Stamp Duty on property transfers and emphasized the mandatory requirements for registration under the Indian Stamp Act and Tamil Nadu Registration Rules.

Headnote:

Stamp Duty - Property Transfer - Indian Stamp Act, 1899, Section 35 - The court discussed the applicability of Stamp Duty on a Partition Deed involving the transfer of property rights through unregistered documents and the evasion of Stamp Duty. The court considered the mandatory requirements under Rule 55-A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules and the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act in reaching its decision.

JUDGMENT :

S.M. Subramaniam, J.

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 10.01.2022 made in W.P.No.17054 of 2021.)

1. The intra-Court appeal on hand has been instituted challenging the order dated 10.01.2022 passed in W.P.No.17054 of 2021.

2. The writ petitioners are the appellants before us. The writ petitioners presented a Partition Deed dated 25.06.2020, before the Registering Authority under the Registration Act for registration. The Registering Officer asked the appellants to pay Stamp Duty under Article 55 (D) (ii) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

3. In view of the demand regarding payment of Stamp Duty, the appellants instituted a writ proceedings to quash the order passed by the Sub Registrar in proceeding dated 25.06.2020.

4. Mr.M.Rajasekar, learned Counsel for the appellants would mainly contend that there is no transfer of property involved in the Partition Deed. Admittedly, the property stands in the name of the partnership firm in which the appellants are the partners. Therefore, by way of Partition Deed, no transfer of property involved. Thus, the order impugned is not in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act.

5. Mr.M.Rajasekar, would further contend that the appellants are only partners in the firm. The erstwhile partners, who all are non-family members have executed Deed of Retirement from partnership firm and in lieu of their shares, they have released the immovable property measuring to an extent of 90 cents. Thus, the immovable property measuring 90 cents transferred in the name of the firm, on account of the Deed of Retirement executed by other partners, who all are non-family members. Thus, there is no impediment for the Registering Authority to register the same and the Stamp Duty need not be paid.

6. In support of the said contention, the learned Counsel for the appellants would rely on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Addanki Narayanappa and another Vs. Bhaskara Krishnappa, (dead) and Others reported in 1966 0 AIR (SC) 1300. The Apex Court made an observation that a trading asset of partnership has no exclusive right to property. Further, he also relied on Judgments to establish that the Partnership Deed need not be registered so also the retirement of partners from the firm.

7. We are of the considered opinion that the Partnership Deed and the Deed of Retirement of partners from a firm is not compulsorily registrable. Since it is optional, the said question would not arise in the present case. The question which would arise is that the Partition Deed presented by the appellants for registration is chargeable under the Indian Stamp Act or not?

8. In this context, Mr.P.Anandakumar, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that the appellants have failed to establish their right over the property for registration of a Partition Deed. Right to title is to be established by producing all relevant documents before the Registering Officer for the purpose of registration of a document under the Act. Since the Sub-Registrar raised a doubt about the title and not satisfied with the document relating to partnership firm produced by the appellants, the order of rejection was passed asking the petitioner to pay the Stamp Duty under Article 55 (D) (ii) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

9. Learned Single Judge considered these aspects and dismissed the writ petition.

10. As per the Deed of Partnership dated 12.03.2014, it is found that Mrs.Nirmala A Jhabakh and Mrs. Neha R Golechha are the partners in “Jindutt Associates”. Subsequently, they have inducted 3 non-family members as partners in the partnership firm namely “Jindutt Associates”. The non family partners were Mr.S.N.Srinivasan S/o Late S.Narayana Rao, Mr.S.N.Nandakumar S/o Late S.Narayana Rao and Mr.C.B.Neelanarayanan S/o Late S.N.R.Babu. Thereafter, the Deed of Retirement was executed by the inducted partners viz., Mr.S.N.Srinivasan, Mr.S.N.Nandak

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top