Writ petition challenging demand of ad-valorem stamp duty on a release deed executed without consideration. Court held it was in nature of a gift and dismissed the petition.
Writ petition dismissed; no error in authorities below demanding ad-valorem stamp duty.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No.3937 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.3937 of 2012
Date of decision: 2.3.2012
Devender Singh Dahiya
-----Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and others
----Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present:Mr. Jitendra Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J .
CWP No.3937 of 2012
2
did not consider the said release deed as such and after registering it as a sale deed reported deficiency in the stamp duty to the tune of Rs.1,22,905/- and registration fee of Rs.9950/- Consequently, respondent No.4 referred the case to the Collector – respondent No.3 on 30.6.2011. respondent No.3 passed the impugned order dated 29.9.2011 under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short, “the Act”) and also issued the impugned notice, Annexures P.1 and P.2 respectively. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner who vide order dated 13.12.2011, Annexure P.3 dismissed the same. Hence the present petition by the petitioner.
made by learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit therein.
CWP No.3937 of 2012
3
not, whether it operated as a conveyance of the suit properties in favour of the respondents.” Since main thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioner had been on this pronouncement, it would be necessary to have closer scrutiny of the factual matrix and the legal proposition enunciated therein. By a Will dated 9.8.1931, Ponnuswami – grand father of the respondents had bequeathed the immovable properties to his paternal uncle's daughter, Kannammal. A suit was filed in January 1952 against several persons including Kannammal challenging inter alia the bequest made by Ponnuswami in her favour. Kannammal died on 1.2.1952 and the appellant survived as her legal heir who was her husband's brother's son. On February 25, 1952, a deed was executed by the appellant releasing the properties in favour of the respondents including certain outstandings due from third parties. The deed was registered on 26.2.1952. An application was filed on the same date for removal of the properties from the scope of the suit in view of the release deed. The Court allowed the application. A suit was instituted by the respondents on 22.1.1953 for the recovery of the outstandings in respect of an item specified in the release deed. The appellants before the Supreme Court were impleaded as defendants in the suit. In the written statement filed, release deed was challenged as invalid. The Munsif decreed the suit. Thereafter, another suit was filed for decree for setting aside recovery of suit properties and accounts. The release deed was challenged being result of fraud, deceit and misrepresentation. It was also the contention of the appellantsplaintiffs therein that release deed could not take effect as a
CWP No.3937 of 2012
4
conveyance. The trial court accepted the plea that the release deed was procured by misrepresentation and it did not effectively convey the properties. The decree of the trial court was set aside by the High Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while rejecting the appeal held that a deed styled as a release deed can transfer title to one who before the transfer had no interest in the property but it would be termed as deed of conveyance. In the facts as noticed herein above, the reliance of the counsel for the petitioners is totally misplaced. The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to refer to any observations in this judgment which may advance the case of the petitioner. Rather, observations are to the contrary and demolish his contention. This Court in Harjot Singh's case (supra) had followed the Apex court judgment in Kuppuswami Chettiar's case (supra).
CWP No.3937 of 2012
5
that was so, no error could be noticed in the order passed by the
authorities below demanding ad-valorem stamp duty.
March 2, 2012 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) 'gs' Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a deed termed as a release deed without consideration but operating as a gift attracts ad-valorem stamp duty?
Whether the petitioner can evade stamp duty by the nomenclature of the deed?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kuppuswami Chettiar v. S.P.A.Arumugam Chettiar and anotherDistinguished¶21
Kuppuswami Chettiar v. S.P.A.Arumugam Chettiar and another, AIR 1967 SC 1395 · Who else cites this
Harjot Singh and others v. Gurjit Singh and othersFollowed¶27
Harjot Singh and others v. Gurjit Singh and others, RSA No.3020 of 2010
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Devender Singh Dahiya
State of Haryana
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
