Disposed

Krishan Lal Vaid v. Ut of Chandigarh & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Jan 2012CWP/22289/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Estate Officer's refusal to register a decree based on a family settlement. The Court held that while such a decree does not require registration, it is compulsorily registrable upon payment of proportionate stamp duty. The Court directed the respondents to register the decree upon compliance.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent-Administration to register the decree on payment of proportionate stamp duty in accordance with the law.

Krishan Lal Vaid Vs Ut of Chandigarh & Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

C.W.P.No.22289 of 2010(O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.W.P.No.22289 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision : 23.01.2012

Krishan Lal Vaid

....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

The Union Territory of Chandigarh through the Estate Officer, Estate Office, Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh and others

¶9

....RESPONDENT(S)

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL

¶11

¶12

Present : Mr.Rahul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr.Dinesh Arora, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶14

None for respondent No.3.

¶15

¶16

HEMANT GUPTA, J

¶17

Challenge in the present petition is to the communication dated 24.06.2010 whereby the petitioner was directed to get property transferred in his favour by way of sale or gift deed.

¶18

The House No.172, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh was owned by Late Sh.Girdhari Lal. Late Sh.Girdhari Lal had another property at Delhi. Petitioner and respondent No.3, sons of Late Sh.Girdhari Lal, inherited the estate of their father on the basis of registered Will dated 15.09.1980. It was on 10.01.2005, petitioner and respondent No.3 entered into family settlement whereby exclusive possession and ownership of House No.172, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh was given to the petitioner whereas respondent

¶19

C.W.P.No.22289 of 2010(O&M)

¶20

-2-

¶21

No.3 became the exclusive owner in possession of the property situated in New Delhi. On the basis of such family settlement, the petitioner filed a civil suit which was decreed on 12.12.2009. A copy of the said judgment has been attached as Annexure P-2. In the said suit, respondent No.3 was proceeded ex-parte. On the basis of the said decree in the civil suit, the petitioner sought the transfer of share of respondent No.3 in his favour which was declined by the Estate Officer vide communication dated 24.06.2010 (Annexure P-3), subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

¶22

In reply, the respondent-Administration has pointed out that the petitioner has earlier filed a civil suit in which the Administration was impleaded as defendant. The said civil suit was dismissed on 28.11.2002 (Annexure P-4). It is, thus, contended that the decree now produced by the petitioner is collusive decree and is to avoid the payment of stamp duty.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that a decree passed on consent or an ex-parte decree is a valid decree which does not require registration when such decree is based on a family settlement. Reliance is placed upon judgments rendered in cases Jai Lal versus Chhattar Singh and others 2004 (4) RCR (Civil) 775 and Prabhu Lal versus Laxmi and others 2007 (1) RCR (Civil) 199 .

¶24

We find that the said stand of the petitioner is meritorious. Between the petitioner and respondent No.3, decree obtained either by consent or when one of the defendants is proceeded against ex-parte, is a valid decree. Such decree having been passed on the basis of family settlement does not require registration. But even after such observations, still, it cannot be said that the decree does not require stamp duty as it has

¶25

-3-

¶26

C.W.P.No.22289 of 2010(O&M)

¶27

the effect of transfer of rights of respondent No.3 in favour of the petitioner.

¶28

Mr.Dinesh Arora, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents states that if the petitioner pays the proportionate amount of stamp duty as per Collector rates, prevailing when the decree in respect of share of respondent No.3 was submitted for registration for the first time, the authorities shall register the decree so as to effectuate transfer of title in favour of the petitioner.

¶29

In view of the said fact, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Administration to register the decree on payment of proportionate stamp duty in accordance with law.

¶30

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE

¶31

(A.N.JINDAL) JUDGE

¶32

23.01.2012 MAMTA

Krishan Lal Vaid v. Ut of Chandigarh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishan Lal Vaid v. Ut of Chandigarh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shinder Singh and Ors. Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

Hisar Ex. Naval Personnel Welfare Society Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Jai Bhagwan Vs Haryana Urban Development Authority and Anr.

M/S Gdpa Fasterners & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Kewal Krishan Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Rakha Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.