SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Del) 834

High Court Of Delhi
JATINDER NATH - Appellant
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Respondent
Civil 6739 of 1999
Decided On : 09/21/2000

Advocates Appeared:
Naresh Thanai, SANGITA BHARTI

A registered Relinquishment Deed can operate as a transfer by way of gift, and can be sufficient for deletion of a co-owner's name from property records.

Headnote:

Mutation - Property Dispute - The court held that a registered Relinquishment Deed can operate as a transfer by way of gift, and the insistence on a Gift Deed by the respondent was untenable. The court quashed the demand for a Gift Deed and directed the deletion of the co-owner's name from the property records.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner's brother relinquished his share in a property through a registered Relinquishment Deed. The respondent refused to delete the brother's name from the property records without a Gift Deed, despite the petitioner's clearance of the entire amount due.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the respondent's demand for a Gift Deed to be illegal and unwarranted, and quashed the demand. The court directed the respondent to delete the co-owner's name from the property records.

Issues: Dispute over deletion of co-owner's name from property records without a Gift Deed.

Ratio Decidendi: A registered Relinquishment Deed can operate as a transfer by way of gift, and the insistence on a Gift Deed by the respondent was untenable.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed the respondent to delete the name of the co-owner within four weeks.

Vijender Jain

( 1 ) FATHER of the petitioner was allotted Plot No. 48, Masjid Moth Extension Residential Scheme, now known was Udai Pak, New Delhi-49 in an open auction conducted by the Delhi Development Authority. A Lease Deed was executed in his favour by the President of India on 24/7/1973. After the demise of the father of the petitioner the property devolved upon his two sons namely, Jatinder Nath, the present petitioner and his brother Narender Nath. Both the brothers applied for mutation with the DDA. Property was mutated in the name of the petitioner and his brother Narender Nath vide letter of respondent dated 22/7/1993.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioner which is not disputed by the respondent, that petitioner cleared entire amount and nothing is due from him. On account of oral settlement and out of love and affection both the brothers settled the matter with regard to their property and Narender Nath executed a Relinquishment Deed dated 21/12/1998 duly registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar relinquishing his share in the property in question in favour of his brother Jatinder Nath, who is petitioner before this Court. On the basis of the said Relinquishment Deed the petitioner applied for deletion of the name of his brother Narender Nath from the records of the respondent.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT refused to transfer/mutate/delete the name of Narender Nath and strangely by the impugned order demanded from the petitioner mat until and unless a Gift Deed duly registered with the Office of the Sub-Registrar is given to the respondent the name of Narender Nath can not be deleted as co-owner of the property in question.

( 4 ) MR. Thanai, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that demand of the respondent is totally illegal and unwarranted. He has contended that Narender Nath happens to be younger brother of petitioner and out of love and affection he relinquished his share from the property which devolved upon them after their father. He has contended that Relinquishment Deed duly registered in the Office of Sub-Registrar is also a Conveyance and inspite of Relinquishment Deed having been executed the respondent can not insist for execution of another Gift Deed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited Kuppuswami Chettiar v. A. S. P. A. Arumugam Chettiar and Another, AIR 1967 SC 1395, where/the Supreme Court held that a registered instrument styled release deed releasing right, title and interest of releasor without consideration may operate as transfer by way of gift when document clearly shows intention to effect transfer and is signed by or on behalf of releasor and attested by at least two witnesses.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, Counsel for the respondent has contended that as per guidelines issued by the Lt. Governor to the respondent, the deletion in the name would be effected when Gift Deed is executed by Narender Nath in favour of petitioner as Narender Nath is also co-sharer in the property. Respondent has filed counter affidavit alongwith the guidelines appearing at page 43 of the paper book and has relied upon Clause II where a deed has been registered . Sub-clause of this clause reads as under:

(I) Where a deed has been registered, addition and substitution of "family members shall be allowed without any charge but on execution of a regular conveyance/gift deed.

( 6 ) AT the outset, I must say as to how these guidelines can come in the way of the respondent in deleting the name of Narender Nath. According to the guidelines relied upon by respondent, the word occurring in Sub-clause (i) of Clause 2 is a regular conveyance/gift deed. A Release Deed or Relinquishment Deed can not be said to be not a Conveyance Deed. The insistance on the part of the respondent is totally untenable in law. I would not dwell much on this controversy because what has been filed by the respondent in this Court and has been heavily relied upon by Counsel for the respondent is some guidelines which pertain to the substit



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top