Retirement of partners from a partnership firm involving non-family members requires stamp duty and compulsory registration under the Indian Stamp Act and Indian Registration Act. The registering officer has the authority to examine previous instruments to ensure compliance with stamp duty and registration requirements.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 03.01.2022

PRONOUNCED ON : 10.01.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

WP.NO.17054 OF 2021

1.Nirmala A Jhabakh

2.Anand Mukesh Jhabakh

..Petitioners

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:

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus

calling for the communication of the second respondent in letter

No.88/2021 dated 25.06.2021 and quash the same and further

direct the second respondent to receive and register the pending

document No.P19/2020 presented on 25.06.2020 in accordance with

the Article 45(a) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

For Petitioners

:

Mr.M.Rajasekhar

For Respondents

:

Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan,

Special Government Pleader

ORDER

The writ petition is filed to issue a writ of certiorarified

mandamus calling for the communication of the second respondent

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

in letter No.88/2021 dated 25.06.2021 and quash the same and

further direct the second respondent to receive and register the

pending document No.P19/2020 presented on 25.06.2020 in

accordance with the Article 45(a) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the property

comprised in old survey No.A-66 and A119-D, RS.Nos.2424 and 2422

to an extent of 1.11-1/8 acres situated at Coonoor, Nilgiri

District was purchased by the registered sale deed dated

15.10.1956 vide document No.844 of 1956 by the partnership firm

'S.Narayana Rao and Bros.' represented by its partners, Narayana

Rao and his brother Venkataramana Rao. The said Venkataramana

Rao died leaving his wife and son to succeed to his estates. The

other partner V.Narayana Rao executed Will on 01.04.1974

bequeathing his share in favour of his sons i.e. S.N.R.Babu,

S.N.Srinivasan and S.N.Nandakumar. The partnership firm was

reconstituted after demise of its original partners on

27.03.1973 by induction of their legal representatives. On

09.12.1976, the legal heirs of the deceased Venkataramana Rao

retired from the partnership firm by way of executing a joint

agreement. However, there was dispute and the legal heirs of the

deceased Narayana Rao filed suit in OS.No.691 of 1977 on the

file of the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore. At the same time,

the legal heirs of the Venkataramana Rao also filed suit in

OS.No.455 of 1981 for declaration declaring that the joint

agreement dated 09.07.1976 is null and void. By common judgment

and decree dated 24.11.1987, dismissed the suit filed by the

legal heirs of the said Venkataramana Rao and decreed the suit

filed by the legal heirs of the said Narayana Rao. Aggrieved by

the same, appeal suit was filed in AS.No.22 of 1988 and the same

was also dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 28.02.1990.

Thereafter, one of the legal heirs of S.N.R.Babu died on

20.06.1997 leaving behind his wife and children to succeed to

his estates. By the registered partition deed dated 11.12.2009,

they divided the properties by metes and bounds and accordingly,

the other legal heirs i.e. S.N.Srinivasan and S.N.Nandakumar

were allotted 30 cents each in RS.Nos.2424 and 2222 in TS.No.9

of Ward C in Block No.6 of Coonoor. The legal heirs of

S.N.R.Babu were allotted the remaining extent of 30 cents.

Thereafter, the wife and daughter of the deceased S.N.R.Babu

relinquished their 2/3 undivided share right and executed

release deed in favour of another legal heir C.B.Neelanarayanan

by the release deed dated 14.05.2014 registered vide document

No.1014 of 2014.

2.1 The further case of the petitioners is that the first

petitioner along with another person constituted a partner