Back
1968 Supreme(Bom) 84
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
J.R.Vimadalal, J.
Appellants: Leela Dhundiraj Divekar
Vs.
Respondent: E.C. Shinde and Anr.
Short Cause Suit No. 265 of 1967 Decided On: 23.07.1968
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: B.R. Zaiwalla, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: S.P. Bharucha, Adv.
A document that extinguishes the rights of a person in an estate is a Deed of Release and is subject to an ad valorem registration fee under Article I (3) of the Table of Fees.
Headnote:
REGISTRATION ACT - REGISTRATION FEES - DEED OF RELEASE - INTERPRETATION - ARTICLE I (3) OF THE TABLE OF FEES - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was filed by the administratrix of an estate seeking a decree directing the registering authorities to register a document within 30 days from the date of the passing of the decree. The document in question was executed between the administratrix and the heirs of the deceased, and it declared that the heirs had received their respective shares in the estate in full satisfaction of their claims. The registering authorities demanded an ad valorem registration fee on the document, contending that it was a Deed of Release without consideration and thus governed by Article I (3) of the Table of Fees. The plaintiff contended that the document was a Deed of Transfer and thus subject to a fixed registration fee under Article IV of the Table of Fees.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the document in question was a Deed of Release, as it extinguished the rights of the heirs in the estate of the deceased. The court noted that the document used the word "discharge" instead of "release," but found that this was a mere technicality and that the substance of the document was a release. The court also rejected the argument that the document was merely a receipt evidencing payment, as it went beyond a mere acknowledgment of receipt and purported to extinguish the heirs' rights.
Issues: 1. Whether the document in question was a Deed of Release and thus subject to an ad valorem registration fee under Article I (3) of the Table of Fees? 2. Whether the document was a Deed of Transfer and thus subject to a fixed registration fee under Article IV of the Table of Fees?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the definition of "Release" in Article 55 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, which defines a Release as an instrument whereby a person renounces a claim upon another person or against any specified property. The court also referred to various standard works on Conveyancing, which define a Deed of Release as a document whereby a person renounces all claims and demands upon another person or against any property. The court found that the document in question met this definition, as it extinguished the rights of the heirs in the estate of the deceased.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, holding that the document in question was a Deed of Release and thus subject to an ad valorem registration fee under Article I (3) of the Table of Fees.
2. The short facts necessary for the purpose of this suit are that the plaintiff is the administratrix of the estate of one Dhundiraj Balwant Divekar who died intestate in Bombay on the 10th of October 1962, leaving him surviving as his only heirs according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, his widow the Plaintiff herself and two sons, one named Suresh, and the other a minor named Bakul. The Plaintiff obtained a grant of Letters of Administration to the estate of the deceased Dhundi-raj from this Court on 21st May 1964, and having completed the administration of the said estate, paid to the said Suresh a sum of Rs. 52,106, and paid to herself in her personal capacity as the heir of the deceased Dhundiraj, and to herself as the mother and natural guardian of her minor son Bakul, a sum of Rs. 1,04,212/- made up of Rs. 29,212 in cash and Rs. 75,000 being the value of a flat on Pedder Road in Bombay. By agreement between the parties, the share of the deceased in the business of United Sound Services was continued to be held in common between his heirs, the said Suresh, the Plaintiff and the said minor Bakul, and was not included in the distribution of the estate mentioned above. On the 10th of August 1966 an instrument which was called a Deed of Transfer was executed between the parties, a copy of which is annexed to the plaint and marked A and it is in respect of the said Deed that the present suit has been filed. It is, therefore, necessary to set out in some detail the nature of the said Deed.
3. After several recitals, the operative part of the said Deed declares that the plaintiff, as administratrix, has made the payments mentioned above to the said Suresh, and to herself in the dual capacity which she holds as stated above, and states that the said Suresh as well as the. plaintiff herself "acknowledge" that they have received the respective amounts due to them as well as the said flat "in full satisfaction" of their respective shares ip the property and effects of the deceased Dhundirai, except his share in the business of United Sound Services. The concluding portion of the said Deed, which is very important for the purpose of this case, is in the following terms:--
"And the said Suresh and the said Leela for herself and as the mother and natural guardian of the said Bakul do hereby discharge Leela the Administratrix from all their respective rights, claims and interest hi the property and effects mentioned in the said Schedule I, hereunder written and from all actions, accounts, claims and demands in respect thereof".
It may be mentioned that Schedule I to the said Deed contains an enumeration of all the property belonging to the estate of the deceased, other than the share of the deceased in the United Sound Services which is shown in Schedule II to the said Deed.
4. In accordance with the adiudica-tion by the Assistant Superintendent of Stamps, Bombay, the said Deed was stamped with a stamp of Rs. 10/-. After its execution, the said Deed was present, ed for registration to the first Defendant on the 24th of October 1966, and the first Defendant computed the registration fee payable thereon on an ad valorem basis at Rs. 679 which he demanded from the plaintiff. The Plaintiff declined to pay the same, contending that a fixed registration fee of only Rs, 10/- was leviable on the said Deed. The first defendant having thereupon refused to register the said Deed, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the order of the first Defendant before the second Defendant under Section 72 of the Registration Act. The second Defendant by his order dated 7th April 1967. however, upheld the decision of the first Defendant in
