Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : K.N.Wanchoo,K.L.Bapna,D.M.Bhandari
HANUMAN PRASAD - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
F. B. Civil Reference 8 Of 1956
Decided On : 12/12/1957
{'KEYWORD': 'STAMP DUTY', 'SUBJECT': 'Gift Deed', 'ACT SECTION LIST': ['Section 40', 'Section 33', 'Section 38', 'Section 2 Clause (14)'], 'SUMMARY': 'The court held that a document reciting a past gift of money, executed three days after the gift was completed, was not an instrument of gift requiring stamp duty. The court found that the document did not create, transfer, limit, extend, or extinguish any right or liability, and that it merely recorded an event of the past. The court also held that the Collector had no jurisdiction to demand payment of the proper duty and penalty as the document had not been impounded.'}
Fact of the Case:
Seth Hanuman Prasad presented a document for registration, declaring a gift of Rs. 3 lacs from his father, Murlidhar Mansinghka. The document was executed on a stamp paper of Rs. 3/- and a registration fee of Rs. 2/- was realized. The Registration Inspector reported that the deed should have been executed on a stamp of Rs. 3,000/- and a registration fee of Rs. 650/- should have been charged. The Tehsildar issued a notice to Hanuman Prasad for payment of Rs. 30,620/- under section 40 of the Indian Stamp Act. Hanuman Prasad filed a revision to the Board of Revenue, which referred the case to the court under section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Collector had no authority or jurisdiction to make a demand of payment of the proper duty and penalty as had been done by him, as the document had not been impounded. The court also held that the document was not insufficiently stamped, as it was not an instrument of gift but only purported to record a past transaction.
Issues: 1. Whether the Collector had any authority or jurisdiction in the circumstances of this case to make a demand of payment of the proper duty and penalty as had lieen done by him? 2. Whether the document was insufficiently stamped?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Collector had no jurisdiction to make a demand of any deficit duty and penalty as the document had not been impounded either by the Collector himself or by any other officer and sent to him under Section 38. The court also held that the document was not an instrument of gift but only purported to record a past transaction and did not require to be stamped under any of the Articles of the Indian Stamp Act.
Final Decision: The court held that the document was not an instrument of gift but only purported to record a past transaction and did not require to be stamped under any of the Articles of the Indian Stamp Act.
K. L. BAPNA, J.
( 1 ) THIS is a reference under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act.
( 2 ) ON 11th September, 1951 Seth Hanuman Prasad presented the following document for registration : "declaration regarding gift of Rupees three lacs from Shri Murlidhar mansinghka to Shri Hanuman Prasad Murlidhar Mansinghka. " we Murlidhar Mansinghka and Hanuman Prasad Murlidhar at present residing at bhilwara (Rajasthan State) respectively solemnly affirm and say as follows :.
"i, Murlidhar Mansinghka for myself say that my son Hanuman Prasad has completed the age of 18 years. With a view to assist him in carrying on his own business, I have out of natural love and affection which I bear towards him made a gift to him of the sum of Rupees three lacs which amount was paid to him on my account by a Hundi drawn by me on Shri Mansinghka Oil Mills Ltd. , Bombay in favour of my son Hanuman prasad. My son Hanuman Prasad has received the sum of Rupees three lacs from Shri Mansinghka Oil Mills Ltd. , Bombay on 8th day of september, 1951, The said sum of Rupees three lacs is my separate and self acquired property and I have every right to dispose of the same in such manner as I think fit. I, Hanuman Prasad Murlidhar for myself say that I have read the statement contained in paragraph 1 above and confirm the same. I have accepted the gift of Rupees three lacs given to me by my father as stated above. I have received the said sum of Rupees three lacs from shri Mansinghka Oil Mills Ltd. , Bombay on 8th day of September, 1951. "
Sd/- Hanuman Prasad Sd/-M. D. Mansinghka. Mansinghka. Solemnly affirmed by Solemnly affirmed by the above named the above named Murli-Hanuman Prasad dhar Mansinghka this murlidhar this 11th day of llth September, 1951. day of September, 1951. Before me : Solemnly. Before me : Solemnly. Sd/-Sd/ registrar, Registrar, bhilwara, Rajasthan. Bhilwara, Rajasthan. (3) This document was executed on a stamp paper of the value of Rs. 3/- and a registration fee of Rs. 2/- was realised.
( 3 ) THIS document was executed on a stamp paper of the value of Rs. 3/- and a registration fee of Rs. 2/- was realised.
( 4 ) ON 2nd July, 1952 the Registration Inspector reported to the Tehsildar Bhilwara that the deed in question should have been executed on a stamp of Rs. 3,. 000/and a registration fee of Rs. 650/- should have been charged upon it. He reported that 10 times the deficiency in stamp duty (Rs. 29,970/-) and the registration fee (Rs. 650/-) were due in respect of the document. The Tehsildar issued a notice to Hanuman Prasad for payment of Rs. 30,620/under section 40 of the Indian Stamp Act. The latter replied that Section 40 was not applicable and the Tehsildar had no jurisdiction. The Tehsildar forwarded the papers to the Collector for guidance and the Collector (Shri Ram Kumar Sharma)issued the following letter to Seth Hanuman Prasad on 12th January, 1953:
"a document which is a gift deed was executed and presented for registration in Tehsil Bhilwara sometime ago. The Inspector of registration who is in charge of a Public Office after scrutiny as contemplated under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act has held that the penalty of Rs. 307620/- (Thirty thousand six hundred and twenty) is recoverable from you because the document was improperly stamped and the said penalty had become chargeable. The full facts were communicated to you by Tehsildar Bhilwara demanding the payment of the said amount. The matter has been pending for some time past and the payment has been deferred which is very much regretted. You are hereby directed under the circumstances to please pay the said amount of Rs. 30,620/-in my office on or about 22nd January, 1953 without fail. Please also note that failure to make payment as directed above may render you liable for an action under a process of recovery provided by the law for such cases. "
( 5 ) SETH Hanuman Prasad filed a revision to the Board of Revenue, which is the chief controlling revenue authority. The
AI
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
