Back
SUNITA AGARWAL, PRANAV TRIVEDI
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Shalin Mukeshbhai Patel – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Letters Patent Appeal No. 689 of 2023 is filed by the State against the judgment and order dated 12.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in holding that the orders dated 02.07.2019 and 03.06.2020 passed by the authorities under the Gujarat Stamp Act’ 1958 are illegal and hence liable to be set aside, further that the money recovered by the State respondents from the original petitioners is to be refunded. Whereas, the Letters Patent Appeal No.864 of 2023, is a cross-appeal preferred by the original Writ petitioner to modify the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 12.12.2022 to the extent of granting 12% interest on the amount directed to be refunded by the State respondents. Hence, both the appeals are heard together and decided by this common judgement and order.
2. The original petitioner namely the respondent herein had filed the writ petition challenging the orders passed by the Stamp authorities in impounding two documents termed as release documents treating them as “transaction for-say” and imposing stamp duty on it, based on the market price.
3. Certain facts relevant to decide the contr
Release deeds executed by a member of a Hindu Undivided Family cannot create new rights for one member over others and must be treated as conveyances subject to stamp duty.
The court clarified the distinction between 'Release' and 'Conveyance', emphasizing existing rights in property under the Indian Stamp Act and the Hindu Succession Act.
(1) Karta may alienate joint family property for value, either for legal necessity or for benefit of estate, to bind interests of all undivided members of family, whether they are adults or minors or....
The court upheld the trial court's order for a temporary injunction, emphasizing that issues of joint family property versus self-acquisition necessitate thorough examination during trial.
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting that property is joint family property, and mere existence of a joint family does not create a presumption of joint ownership.
![N. Kalavathy VS Sriramulu Naidu [deceased] - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 1817](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Madras_2.png)
The court affirmed that a registered release deed executed by a father in favor of another coparcener is a valid conveyance for consideration, despite claims of fraud and joint family status.
The presumption of joint family status persists until proven otherwise, with the burden of proof on the party asserting separation.
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
