The learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute the finding of the Courts below that the property was non-ancestral in nature and he being an outsider non-family member vendee should be declared a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration from the person in whose favour the suit property was released by Hari Singh. Therefore, the view expressed by the learned first Appellate court that a release deed can be only made qua ancestral property [inference being that if that is so therefore the release deed is a nullity and property did not change hands], is not correct on the facts of this case read with the affirmative and negative parts of the Government notification. The Court should have instead held that the stamp duty on such a transaction would have to be paid on the release deed by treating it as a sale deed of immovable property equal to the market value of the share, interest, part of claim renounced in favour of the person in whose favour transfer of property was intended by the rightful owner. However, the transaction does not become a sham one a priori where property is nonancestral and self acquired when vendor can be pinned down to his ostensible intention to transfer immovable property and avoid payment of stamp duty. For intents and purposes the release deed though in sheep's clothing shall suffer the wolf at the door of the State Treasury and deposit of appropriate Stamp Duty. Thus a misreading of the notification gives rise to a substantial question of law which is framed as follows, however, after putting the horse behind the cart : -
