Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Dipak Kumar Sen
SATYESH CHANDRA BANERJEE - Appellant
Versus
SM.RANI BANERJEE - Respondent
Suit 105 Of 1976
Decided On : 06/28/1977
DEED OF RELEASE - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY - STAMP ACT, 1899 - SECTIONS 35, 36, 61 - EFFECT OF ADMISSION OF UNSTAMPED OR INSUFFICIENTLY STAMPED DOCUMENT IN EVIDENCE - WHETHER SUCH DOCUMENT CAN BE CHALLENGED AT A LATER STAGE - WHETHER A REGISTERED DEED OF RELEASE CAN OPERATE AS A CONVEYANCE - INTERPRETATION OF THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE DEED - INTENTION TO TRANSFER TITLE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a partition suit claiming a half share in the property and another 1/6th share inherited from his deceased brother Ramesh, who died intestate and unmarried. Nirmala, the sister of the plaintiff, executed a Deed of Release relinquishing her share in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants, including Nirmala, contested the validity of the Deed of Release, arguing that it was not a legal transfer or conveyance and that Nirmala was not aware of her share in the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Deed of Release was a valid deed of gift in favor of the plaintiff. The court relied on several precedents, including Hemendra Nath Mukerji v. Kumar Nath Roy, Subramanian Chetiar v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Thayyil Mammo v. Kottiah Bamunni, and Kuppu Swami v. A. S. P. A. Arumugan, which established that a registered instrument styled as a release deed could operate as a conveyance if it clearly disclosed an intention to effect a transfer. The court found that the operative part of the Deed of Release was unambiguous and intended to transfer whatever right, title, and interest Nirmala had in the property to the plaintiff.
Issues: 1. Whether the Deed of Release executed by Nirmala was a valid transfer or conveyance of her share in the property. 2. Whether Nirmala had knowledge of her share in the property at the time of executing the Deed of Release. 3. Whether the Deed of Release was properly stamped.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Deed of Release was a valid deed of gift in favor of the plaintiff. The court relied on precedents establishing that a registered instrument styled as a release deed could operate as a conveyance if it clearly disclosed an intention to effect a transfer. The court found that the operative part of the Deed of Release was unambiguous and intended to transfer whatever right, title, and interest Nirmala had in the property to the plaintiff. 2. The court found that Nirmala had knowledge of her share in the property at the time of executing the Deed of Release. The court noted that the recitals in the deed specifically recorded the deaths of Rajendra, Ramesh, and Suresh, Nirmala's father, brother, and uncle, respectively. 3. The court held that the objection to the stamp duty on the Deed of Release could not be raised at a later stage as the document had been admitted in evidence without any objection. The court relied on Section 36 of the Stamp Act, 1899, which provides that once an instrument has been admitted in evidence, its admissibility cannot be questioned on the ground of insufficient stamp duty.
Final Decision: The court decreed that the plaintiff was entitled to two-thirds share and the defendants were each entitled to 1/36th share in the property. The court appointed a Commissioner of Partition to divide the property among the parties.
( 1 ) THE property which is the subject-matter of this partition suit is premises No. 9, Gopi Mohon Dutta Lane, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said premises ). It is alleged in the plaint that one Rajendra Lal Banerjee, a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga purchased the said premises in the benami of his wife Khanta Bala. Rajendra Lal died intestate on or about the 3rd November, 1936 leaving him surviving Khanta Bala his sole widow, his three sons Suresh Chandra, Ramesh Chandra and Satyesh Chandra and his daughter Nirmala Chakravarti.
( 2 ) KHANTA Bala died on the 28th December, 1953 intestate and leaving her surviving her children the said Suresh, Ramesh and Satyesh and Nirmala,
( 3 ) SURESH died intestate in or about 20th October, 1959 leaving him surviving his sole widow and his eleven children as his heirs, heiresses and legal representatives.
( 4 ) RAMESH, died intestate and unmarried on or about the 28th January, 1972 leaving Satyesh and Nirmala as his heir and heiress.
( 5 ) NIRMALA has executed a Deed of Release dated the 26th May, 1975 whereby she has relinquished all her right, title and interest in the said premises in favour of Satyesh,
( 6 ) IN this background, Satyesh has filed this suit claiming declaration of shares of the parties and partition of the said premises Rani Banerjee, the defendant No. 1, is the widow of Suresh. Sunil, Sushil, Debdas, Tapan and Anup, the sons of Suresh have been impleaded as the defendants Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Mithu, Usha, Aparna and Mamata the unmarried daughters of Suresh, have been impleaded as the defendants Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10. Mira Chatterjee and Juthika Chatterjee, the married daughters of Suresh, have been impleaded as the defendants Nos. 11 and 12. Nirmala has been impleaded as the defendant No. 13.
( 7 ) IT is not disputed that the plaintiff has a half share in the said premises. On the basis of the Deed of Release executed by Nirmala the plaintiff is claiming another l/6th share which Nirmala inherited from Ramesh.
( 8 ) THE plaintiff gave evidence In sups port of his claim. He tendered the Deed of Release dated the 26th May, 1975 executed by Nirmala which was marked as Ext. A, without any objection. The plaintiff proved the correctness of the genealogical table set out in the plaint and stated the relationship between the parties. Learned Advocate for Nirmala stated on instructions that Nirmala did acknowledge the said Deed of Release and intended that her share should go to the plaintiff.
( 9 ) THE only contention on behalf of the defendants Nos. 1, 4, 5, 8 and 12 has been that the Court should not permit the plaintiff to claim the share of Nirmala in the said premises. By the Deed of Release it is contended there has not been a legal transfer or conveyance of the share of Nirmala in favour of the plaintiff. It was apparent from the said document that Nirmala had no knowledge as to her share in the said premises. In any event, as a deed of transfer the document was insufficiently stamped and could not be accepted in evidence.
( 10 ) MR. Shyamal Sen, learned counsel for the plaintiff, cited a number of decisions and contended on the basis thereof that the deed (Ext. A) was valid deed of gift in favour of the plaintiff. The said decisions are considered in their chronological order as follows:--The first decision is Hemendra Nath Mukerji v. Kumar Nath Roy, reported in (1908) 12 Cal WN 478. In this case a registered deed of disclaimer whereby the executants, inter alia, relinquished all their right, title and interest and claim in a property in favour of the releasee, was held to be transfer and that such transfer was complete as soon as the deed was registered. The next decision, Subramanian Chetiar v. Revenue Divisional Officer, reported in AIR 1956 Mad 454 was cited for the proposition that an unstamped or defectively stamped document was not void but was effective from the date of its execution, though incapable of being made use of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
