IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that a Relinquishment Deed executed in favor of one co-owner to the exclusion of others is considered a Conveyance/Gift Deed and must be stamped accordingly. Additionally, instruments not duly stamped must be impounded and forwarded for adjudication of the deficit Stamp Duty/penalty.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J. - I.A. 4279/2022 (u/S 33, 38 & 40 of Indian Stamp Act r/w Section 151 of CPC)

1. The present Application under Sections 33, 38 and 40 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1899') read Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC, 1908') has been filed on behalf of the applicant/defendant No. 1 seeking impounding of the original Relinquishment Deed dated 12.01.2018 and sending the same to the Collector for determination for payment of proper Stamp Duty and Registration Fee and penalty.

2. The facts in brief are that the plaintiff had filed the Suit for Partition and Injunction in respect of Suit Property bearing No. B-1/97, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi measuring 167.22 sq. meters claiming that the said property belonged to his father. The plaintiff's father was survived by two sons and a wife, who each became entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit property.

3. It is asserted that the defendant No. 2/Smt. Shakuntla, mother, has relinquished her 1/3rd share in the suit property in favour of the plaintiff, making him entitled to cumulative of 2/3rd share in the suit property. In this regard, the non-applicant/plaintiff had relied upon the original Relinquishment Deed dated 12.01.2018 which was filed by him pursuant to the Order dated 16.04.2021.

4. It is claimed by the applicant/defendant No. 1 that a perusal of the Relinquishment Deed dated 12.01.2018 shows that the total Stamp Duty at the time of registration of the Instrument paid was Rs. 200/- which is not in accordance with law.

5. The applicant has relied upon the judgment in the case of Tripta Kaushik vs. Sub-Registrar, VI-A, Delhi & Anr. MANU/DE/1090/2020, wherein it has been held that where the relinquishment of the right by the co-owner is only in favour of one of the other co-owners and not against all, it is a document which would be one of Gift/Conveyance and not of release.

6. It is further submitted that the Stamp Duty on Gift/Conveyance Deed in Delhi is payable @ 4% if the Donee /Vendee is a woman and @ 6% if the Donee/Vendee is a man. Since, the Instrument dated 12.01.2018 is indeed a Gift/Conveyance Deed and not a Relinquishment Deed as it has been titled, the Instrument dated 12.01.2018 is liable to be impounded and forwarded to the Collector of Stamps for imposition of proper Stamp Duty/Penalty.

7. It is submitted that in the case of Eider PWI Paging Limited & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. 2010 (115) DRJ 263, this Court held that a document which is not stamped with the requisite Stamp Duty, is bound to be impounded under Section 3 of the Act, 1899 as the expression used is -shall'. There is no discretion with the Court in this aspect as has also been held by the Apex Court in the case of Government of A.P. vs. P. Laxmi Devi (2008) 4 SCC 720. Therefore, a prayer is made that the Relinquishment Deed be impounded and forwarded to the Collector of Stamps for imposition of proper Stamp Duty/Penalty.

8. The proforma defendant/Ms. Shakuntla Arya, who executed the Deed of Relinquishment, in her Reply has submitted that the Relinquishment Deed bears the correct Stamp and Registration Duty. Therefore, it is not liable to be impounded and the application is without merit, which is liable to be dismissed.

9. No formal Reply has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff.

10. Submissions heard.

11. At the outset, it is appropriate to ascertain the essence of a Deed of Relinquishment, its effect and who is entitled to execute such Instrument.

12. The nature of relinquishment of the share by one co-owner in favour of another by a Deed or Instrument was considered by the Full Bench of Madras High Court in the case of The Board of Revenue, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority vs. V.M. Murugesa Mudaliar of Gudiyatham 1955 SCC OnLine Mad 83, wherein it was observed that in a case where the property is owned by the co-owners, there need not be any Gift/Conveyance Deed executed by one co-owner in favou