Partner release deeds among family members are subject to different stamp duty under Article 55-D; however, market value must be adequately assessed prior to imposing deficit duties or penalties.

COMMON ORDER

Challenge in all these writ petitions is to the impugned orders dated 13.12.2019 passed by the 1^st respondent / revisional authority confirming the orders dated 08.07.2016 passed by the 2^nd respondent-District Registrar demanding (i) payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty of (i) Rs.2,52,950/- and Rs.50/- from the petitioner in W.P.No.28854 of 2022; (ii) payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty Rs.3,31,703/- and Rs.50/- from the petitioner in W.P.No.28856 of 2022; and (iii) payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty of Rs.2,43,685/- and Rs.50/- from the petitioner in W.P.No.28857 of 2022 and for a consequential direction to the 3^rd respondent to register the pending documents in P.No.129, 131 & 130 of 2015 respectively based on the stamp duty and registration charges already paid by the petitioner under Article 55-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 .

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of these writ petitions in common are as under:-

(a) The petitioners are full-blood brothers and partners of M/s. Hotel Prince Palace having its registered office presently at No.153-A, Ganesh Hall, Walsham Road, Udagamandalam 643 001. The said hotel is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 with Registrar of Firms vide Registration No.517 of 1989 on the file of the Registrar of Firms, Coimbatore.

The partnership firm through its partners owns and exclusively possess the following immovable properties:-

(b) In order to effectively manage the property, two of the partners have decided to release their respective 1/3^rd share in the properties described above in favour of the other partner. Accordingly, the two partners of the firm executed the deeds individually in favour of the other partner releasing their respective 1/3^rd share in the property. When those release deeds were presented for registration before the 3^rd respondent with a stamp duty of Rs.25,000/- in respect of Pending Document No.P.129/2015; Rs.25,000/- in respect of Pending Document No.P.130 of 2015; and Rs.25,000/- in respect of Pending Document No.P.131 of 2015 under Article 55-A of the Stamp Act, valuing the properties covered under the deed at Rs.6,00,000/-, Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.6,00,000/- respectively, the 3^rd respondent registering authority valuing the market value of the property covered under the deeds at Rs.92,65,000/- ; Rs.89,56,170/-; and Rs.44,58,781/-

(c) The 3^rd respondent has valued the documents under Article 55-D (ii) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and as a result of the same, he has kept the document presented by the respective petitioners as pending in P.No.129, 131 & 130 of 2015 respectively and forwarded the same to the 2^nd respondent for further action in this regard. The 2^nd respondent in his proceedings dated 08.07.2016 in Nos.2426/2016, 2427/2016 & 2428/2016 passed orders reiterating the stand of the 3^rd respondent classifying the deeds which are sought to be registered are required to be stamped under 55-D(i) and directing the parties to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty as mentioned under first paragraph of this order.

(d) Challenging the orders passed by the 2^nd respondent, the respective petitioners filed revision petitions before the 1^st respondent and the 1^st respondent / revisional authority in turn passed an order confirming the order passed by the 2^nd respondent holding that deeds are required to be stamped as per Article 55-A (i) of the Indian Stamp Act and t