A partition deed involving property of a partnership firm requires proper documentation and payment of stamp duty when previous rights aren't clearly established.

2024:MHC:1497 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.03.2024 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Writ Appeal No.480 of 2022

1.Nirmal A Jhabakh

2.Anand Mukesh Jhabakh ... Appellants Vs.

1.The District Registrar, Stone House, Government Arts College Road, Udhagamandalam Road.

2.The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Coonoor, Nilgiris. ... Respondents 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.

For Appellants : Mr.M.Rajasekar For Respondents : Mr.P.Anandakumar Government Advocate

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM) 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