IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
B. VEERAPPA, J.
B.R. Jagadhish - Appellant
Versus
District Registrar & Deputy Commissioner For Stamps - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 34091, 41103, 41104, 41105, 41107, 41108, 41109 of 2014
Decided On : 03-06-2019
Constitution Of India,1950 - Article 28(a) - Section 14 Stamp Act - Sections 33 and 39 - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 14 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882- Section 14 - Quash - Transfer of Property - Petition schedule properties were originally owned by late who had two wives - He had one son from and from had no children married out of their wedlock they had no children died and later got married to and they had two children - original executed a will during his life time bequeathing all properties in favour of his grandson late passed away without leaving any heirs –Held, Court to direct officer of High Court to enquire and to find out nature and character of document- word "examination" used in proviso of Act cannot be allowed to have such wide amplitude as context does not so envisage- It has to be conferred restricted meaning which is in consonance with provision and scheme Act and narrow meaning as court find is examination by officer of Court is only to determine as adequacy of inadequacy of stamp duty paid and to impound instrument- In view of aforesaid provisions of Stamp Act and law laid down by Honble Supreme Court Deputy Commissioner for Stamps can decide stamp duty payable based on gift deed presented before him - Deputy Commissioner for Stamps while considering stamp duty payable has to consider recitals of document where relationship of donor and done is clearly mentioned first respondent - Deputy Commissioner for Stamps proceeded to pass impugned order beyond his jurisdiction without properly examining recitals of document and without looking into provisions of Sections Stamp Act and erroneously directed petitioner to pay stamp duty Article Stamp Act- Therefore impugned order cannot be sustained - Deputy Commissioner for Stamps to reconsider matter afresh in light of recitals of gift deed in terms of provisions Sections Karnataka Stamp Act and in view of law laid down in decisions stated supra and pass orders strictly in accordance with law – Petition allowed
JUDGMENT :
B. Veerappa, J.
1. The petitioner who claims to be a donee under a gift deed dated 13.12.2013 is before this Court for a writ of certiorari and to quash the order dated 20.03.2014 passed by the first respondent - Deputy Commissioner for Stamps, vide Annexure 'A' and a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent - Senior sub-Registrar, to register the gift deed dated 13.12.2013 without insisting on payment of stamp duty under Article 28(a) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, and to release the registered gift deed in favour of the petitioner vide Annexure 'C'.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petition schedule properties were originally owned by late Sri. Thilisandra Rudrappa who had two wives, Smt. Nanjamma and Smt. Basamma. He had one son Thilisandra Chennasetru from Smt. Nanjamma and from Smt. Basamma, he had no children. Sri. Thilisandra Chennasetru married Smt. Puttamma and out of their wedlock they had no children. Smt. Puttamma died and later Sri. Thilisandra Chennasetru got married to Smt. T.C.Gowramma and they had two children - Sri. Shivarudrappa and Nanjamma. Sri. Thilisandra Rudrappa, the original propositor executed a will during his life time, bequeathing all the properties in favour of his grandson late Shivarudrappa. In the year 1925, Sri. Shivarudrappa passed away without leaving any heirs. As such the schedule properties got reverted and vested in late T.C.Gouramma who became the sole and absolute owner of the scheduled properties. Smt. Nanjamma, the daughter of T.C.Gouramma had only one daughter - T.N. Sarvamangala.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that during the life time of T.C.Gouramma, she established a private trust with herself, her daughter - Nanjamma and her grand daughter - T.N. Sarvamangala as the trustees and properties were managed by them during their life time. The Trust had two important clauses :
(i) That the trustees will have only life time interest and they do not have the right to sell, mortgage or take loan over the property; and
(ii) the Trust automatically dissolves when a male child is born and in case a male as well as a female children are born, the property will be divided as two shares to male child and one share to female child and if only a female child is born, she once again becomes a Trustee and will have only life interest in the properties.
4. It is further contended that the family trust created by T.C.Gowramma was in violation of the rules of Perpetuity under the provisions of Section 14 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Thus, the family trust became null and void and inoperative in the eyes of law being void ab initio. Therefore, T.N. Sarvamangala, being a female member having acquired limited interest under the trust deed became the full owner as the trust deed was void and also by virtue of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Smt. T.N. Sarvamangala had two children - the petitioner herein and a daughter Smt. Renuka Pujar. It is further contended, Smt. T.N. Sarvamangala in consideration of the natural love and affection towards her children intended to gift the properties to her son - B.R. Jagadish, the petitioner herein (born out of the wedlock between T.N. Sarvamangala and T.N. Rudraiah) and her daughter - Smt. Renuka Pujar (born out of the wedlock between T.N. Sarvamangala and N.A. Kumar). Accordingly, the gift deed dated 13.02.2013 came to be executed by Smt. T.N. Sarvamangala and the same was presented to the second respondent - Senior sub-Registrar for registration along with an amount of Rs.2,300/- as the gift was within the family members. After examining the instrument along with other documents, the second respondent impounded the instrument on the ground that the stamp duty paid was not in accordance with law and the impounded instrument was sent to the first respondent for taking necessary action. The first
Black Pearl Hotels Private Limited Vs. Planet M. Retail Limited
L and T Komatsu Limited Vs. Senior Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka and others
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.