Madras High Court
The Chief Controlling Revenue ... vs M/S.M.Mohamed Siddique & Co on 7 June, 2023
W.A.No.858 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.06.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
W.A.No.858 of 2021
1.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority-cum-
Inspector General of Registration,
100, Santhome High Road,
Chennai-600 028.
2.The District Registrar,
Court Campus, District Registrar's Office,
Cantonment, Tiruchirapaalli-620 001.
3.The Sub Registrar,
K.Sathanur, 372, Rajaram Salai,
Tiruchirapalli-620 021. .. Appellants
Vs
1.M/s.M.Mohamed Siddique & Co.,
rep. by its Managing Partner
M.Syed Mohamed
2.Janab M.Syed Mohamed
3.Janab M.S.Mohamed Siddique
4.Janab M.S.Mohamed Rafique
5.Janaba M.S.Subaida Begum
6.Janaba M.S.Thameem Fathima
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.858 of 2021
7.Janaba M.S.Faeela Begum
8.Janaba M.S.Safeena Begum
9.Janaba M.S.Dilshath Begum
10.Janaba K.M.Noor Jahan .. Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order made in W.P.No.2514 of 2016 dated 21.02.2019.
For the Appellants : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
Government Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr.V.Raghavachari
Senior Counsel
along with
Ms.R.Abirame
for Ms.V.Srimathi
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The appellants assail the judgment and order passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court dated 21.02.2019 in W.P.No.2514
of 2016.
2. The respondents herein have filed the aforesaid writ
petition challenging the order of the appellants 1 and 2 withholding
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.858 of 2021
the document bearing No.18 of 2014 on the ground that sufficient
stamp duty has not been paid. The learned Single Judge of this
Court allowed the writ petition setting aside the orders passed by
respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition and the third respondent in
the writ petition was directed to release the document, if it is
otherwise in order.
3. We have heard Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, learned Government
Advocate for the appellants and Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned senior
counsel along with Ms.R.Abirame for the respondents.
4. The issue involved is whether stamp duty is payable on the
document executed amongst the respondents dated 15.09.2014
titled as “partition deed”.
5. Learned Government Advocate submits that the partition of
the properties amongst the respondents took place in respect of
partnership firm properties. The partition took place when the firm
is ongoing firm. The firm was dissolved on 1.10.2014. In view of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.858 of 2021
the fact that the properties in question were not owned by the
respondents as joint properties and the properties are of the firm,
the partition deed would attract stamp duty as contemplated under
Article 58(ii) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for brevity, “the Stamp
Act”). The learned Single Judge of this Court has committed an
error while applying Article 46B(ii) of the Stamp Act. The document
has not been read properly by the learned Single Judge while
passing the impugned order. The auditor letter also would
substantiate the case of the present appellants.
6. According to learned counsel for the respondents, the
partition deed will have to be read as a whole. The partnership firm
comprised of the partners who are related to each other and family
members. The learned Single Judge has correctly applied Article
46B(ii) of the Stamp Act.
7. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the
parties and also perused the order passed by the learned Single
Judge.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.858 of 2021
8. It does not appear to be a matter of debate that the
respondents herein are members of the same family and had
formed a partnership firm in the name and style of “M/s.Mohamed
Sithik & Co”. It transpires that on 15.09.2014, the partners who
are members of the family partitioned the properties of the
partnership firm amongst themselves. The document titled as
“partition deed” is subject-matter of interpretation. It would be
appropriate to refer to the document. It is trite that the
nomenclature of the document may not be much relevant.
Moreover, the document as a whole will have to be read and
considered. The document states that in the past few years the
partnership firm was not involved in any of the business activities.
It further states that as the family members are the partners of the
firm and apart from the properties in question of the firm there was
no other movable or immovable properties belonging to the firm, as
per the ratio of capital investment made by the family members,
the properties were divided. The properties were divided in tune
with the ratio of the investment made by the partners in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.858 of 2021
partnership firm. The document further states that the partnership
firm will continue to be ongoing firm till the execution of the
document. The English translation does not appear to be in tune
with the original document. The learned Single Judge, in his
judgment and order, has re-produced the text from the original
document in vernacular language, where it records that the firm will
be ongoing firm till the execution of the document in question i.e.
the partition deed dated 15.09.2014.
9. In the light of that, Article 46B(ii) of the Stamp Act would
squarely apply. The said Article provides that when dissolution
involves partition of immovable properties of the firm among the
partners who are family members or when such dissolution involves
partition of movable properties, the stamp duty payable is one
rupee for every Rs.100/- or part thereof of the market value of the
property which is under partition. The said Article further states
that the word “family” shall have the same meaning as defined in
the Explanation to Article 58.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.858 of 2021
10. The learned Single Judge has construed the document
correctly. Only because the auditor has given a letter stating that
the firm stands dissolved on 1.10.2014 would not be sufficient to
negate the contents of the document dated 15.09.2014, wherein it
is clearly stated that the partnership firm will be ongoing firm till the
date of the execution of the said document i.e. the partition deed
dated 15.09.2014.
11. In view of the above, the learned Single Judge has rightly
passed the order.
12. The writ appeal, as such, is dismissed. There will be no
order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.4994 of 2021 is closed.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
07.06.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
bbr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.858 of 2021
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.
bbr
W.A.No.858 of 2021
07.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
