Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Tripta Kaushik - Appellant
Versus
Sub Registrar VI-A, Delhi - Respondent
W.P.(C) 9193 of 2019 and W.P.(C) 3560 of 2018
Decided On : 20-05-2020
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The court distinguished between relinquishment deeds executed solely for one co-owner and those benefiting all co-owners. A relinquishment deed that benefits only one co-owner, without involving all, is classified as a gift rather than a release, which impacts stamp duty liability (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The nature of the deed—whether it is a release or a gift—is determined by the actual character and purpose of the transaction, not merely by its nomenclature or language. The transaction's intent and effect are decisive factors (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
A true release deed involves the relinquishment of rights by a co-owner in favor of all other co-owners, leading to an enlargement of the remaining co-owners' shares. Conversely, executing a deed solely in favor of one co-owner constitutes a gift, not a release (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The execution of separate relinquishment deeds by individual co-owners, each in favor of some but not all other co-owners, does not meet the legal criteria for a release as per the relevant legal principles and thus is classified as a transfer or gift (!) (!) (!) .
The actual intent behind the deed, the recitals, and covenants are crucial. If the recitals suggest a transfer of interest rather than a relinquishment in favor of all co-owners, the deed is considered a conveyance or gift, affecting stamp duty obligations (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the designation of the document and the language used are not conclusive; the true character is determined by the transaction's substance and purpose (!) (!) (!) (!) .
In the specific cases discussed, the relinquishment deeds executed in favor of a single co-owner, or those supporting a transfer rather than a release, were held to be gifts or conveyances and not exempt from higher stamp duty as a release (!) (!) (!) .
The orders impounding the deeds for deficient stamp duty were upheld, but penalties imposed without clear reasoning were set aside. The court directed the respondents to proceed with registration and to pay costs accordingly (!) (!) .
The court clarified that the execution of deeds that do not satisfy the criteria of a release—such as those favoring only one co-owner or containing recitals of transfer—are chargeable as gifts or conveyances, not as releases (!) (!) .
The court also noted that in cases where the deeds are part of a single transaction, even if executed separately, they may collectively constitute a release if they meet the legal criteria; otherwise, they are considered gifts or transfers (!) (!) .
In summary, the court's primary emphasis is on the actual intent, character, and effect of the deed rather than its label or form. Deeds that transfer or relinquish rights only in favor of specific co-owners are classified as gifts or conveyances, impacting stamp duty obligations accordingly.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges impoundment of relinquishment deed. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner challenges multiple relinquishment deeds and stamp duty assessment. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. clarification on articles 55 and 33 of stamp act. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. judicial interpretations on release deeds and their characteristics. (Para 17 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. court’s final view on classification of documents as release or gift. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 36) |
| 6. outcome of the case on penalty and stamp duty refund. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
JUDGMENT
1. WP (C) 9193/2019 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 05.03.2019 passed by the respondent no. 1 impounding the Relinquishment Deed dated 01.03.2019 executed by the son of the petitioner, Mr. Kapil Kaushik, in favour of the petitioner, with respect to the property bearing No. B-123, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi.
2. The said property was acquired by late Shri. Brijesh Kumar Kaushik, and upon his death, the Delhi Development Authority executed a Conveyance Deed dated 07.04.2000 with respect to the said property in favour of the petitioner and her son.
3. By the Relinquishment Deed dated 01.03.2019, son of the petitioner sought to release/relinquish his rights in the said property in favour of the petitioner.
4. By the Impugned Order dated 05.03.2019, the respondent no. 1, however, impounded the said document treating the same to be as a Gift under Article 33 of Schedule IA of the Indian STAMP ACT , 1899 as applicable to the Union Territory of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `Act') and thereafter held the Release Deed to be deficiently stamped and impounded the same. Aggrieved of the said order the present petition has been filed.
5. WP (C) 3560/2018 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 01.03.2013 passed by the respondent no. 3 impounding the Relinquishment Deed(s) executed by the sisters of the petitioner in favour of the petitioner with respect to their share in the property bearing No. E-67, Greater Kailash, Part-II, New Delhi, holding that the said Relinquishment Deeds (five in number; three dated 06.07.2012 and two dated 17.07.2012) are liable to be stamped under Article 33 of the Act.
6. The petition further challenges the order dated 15.05.2013 passed by the respondent no. 2 assessing the Stamp Duty payable on the said Relinquishment Deeds at Rs.6,60,257/- and further imposing a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- on the petitioner.
7. The property was purchased by the parents of the petitioner, late Shri Jagdish Prashad Sharma and Smt Shanti Devi, vide a registered Sale Deed dated 10.07.1972.
8. The petitioner claims that late Shri Jagdish Prashad Sharma bequeathed his half share in the property in favour of the petitioner by way of a Will registered on 24.09.2001.
9. Late Shri Jagdish Prashad Sharma expired on 31.10.2003, leaving behind his wife, the petitioner and his five daughters as the only Class I heirs.
10. The three sisters of the petitioner executed three separate Relinquishment Deeds in favour of the petitioner on 03.07.2012 relinquishing their share in the property in favour of the petitioner. The remaining two sisters relinquished their share in the property in favour of the petitioner by way of two separate Relinquishment Deeds both dated 17.07.2012. It is claimed that these two sisters could not execute the Relinquishment Deeds on 03.07.2012 as they were not in Delhi at that time.
11. As noted hereinabove, on presentation of the Deeds for registration, they were first impounded by the respondent no. 3 vide order dated 01.03.2013 and later the respondent no. 2, vide the Impugned Order dated 15.05.2013, assessed deficient Stamp Duty as Rs.6,60,257/- and levied a penalty of Rs.1 lakh.
12. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of the above orders, has filed the present petition.
13. As common question of law arises in the above two petitions, they are being taken up for consideration together.
14.
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
