Relinquishment of title and interest in joint property constitutes a conveyance, as established in the case of Gyan Chand vs. State & Ors., AIR 1998 Rajasthan 223.

Govind Mathur, J.-To quash the order dated 010.1998 passed by the Collector (Stamps), Jodhpur and the Judgment dated 111.2000 passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, a writ of certiorari is sought by the petitioner.

2. Facts in brief , necessary for adjudication of this writ petition, are that Shri Virendra Kumar Jain, Smt. Rekha Jain, Shri Anil Kumar Jain and the petitioner respectively purchased Plots No. 306, 307, 308 and 309 in Manji-ka-Hatha Scheme developed by Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur, The petitioner wanted to establish a medical clinic over the plots referred above, therefore, reconstitution of Plots No. 306, 307, 308 and 309 was made by the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur at the request of the petitioner and Shri Virendra Kumar Jain, Smt. Rekha Jain and Shri Anil Kumar Jain. The Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur also executed a fresh lease deed in favour of all the abovenamed persons after reconstitution of plots.

3. Shri Virendra Kumar Jain, Smt. Rekha Jain and Shri Anil Kumar Jain after execution of the lease deed decided to relinquish their rights with regard to their share in the reconstituted property and for the purpose a document in the name of release deed was executed. The documents was presented before the Sub-Registrar, Jodhpur for its registration on 30.03.1997. The Sub Registrar while registering the document made a reference to the Collector (Stamps) on 03.05.1997 to determine stamp duty by treating the document as conveyance. The Collector (Stamps) by order dated 010.1998 held that though the document is titled as release deed but in fact it intends to transfer an immovable property, therefore, is a conveyance as defined.

4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer and that too came to be rejected by Judgment dated 111.2000. The Board of Revenue while affirming the order dated 010.1998 also held that even the document placed for its registration is a release deed, it is to be treated as a conveyance in light of a circular dated 18.03.1997 issued by Government of Rajasthan.

5. The instant petition for writ, hence, is preferred to challenge the order dated 010.1998 passed by the Collector (Stamps) and the Judgment dated 111.2000 passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer.

6. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a co-owner of the property with Shri Virendra Kumar Jain, Smt. Rekha Jain and Shri Anil Kumar Jain and the co-owners have released their share in property, therefore, the document could not be treated as a deed of conveyance. According to Counsel for petitioner it is nothing but a release deed.

7. The another contention of Counsel for the petitioner is that the document in question was executed on 04.03.1997 and the circular dated 18.03.1997 came into force on 12.03.1997, therefore, it is having no application with regard to transaction in question.

8. Heard Counsel for the parties.

9. According to the petitioner himself the plots No. 306, 307 and 308 were independently purchased by Shri Virendra Kumar Jain, Smt. Rekha Jain and Shri Anil Kumar Jain respectively and subsequently a reconstitution of plot was made by the Urban Improvement Trust by including Plot No. 309 with the plots referred above. The petitioner with the three persons named above was having independent share in the reconstituted plot, as such every individual was having their individual title and interest in the property purchased by the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur at its Manji-Ka-Hatha scheme.

10. This Court in the case of Gyan Chand vs. State & Ors., AIR 1998 Rajasthan 223, while dealing with a similar controversy held that relinquishment of title and interest in the joint property by one joint owner in favour of another joint owner would only be transfer of interest of one joint owner in favour of another joint owner, each joint owner having distinguishable independent