Back
2007 Supreme(Raj) 2060
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
R.M.Lodha, J.
Kishan Prasad Gharwar through L.Rs. - Appellant
Versus
Ram Narain S/o Shri Jugal Kishore through L.Rs. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 42 of 1991.
Decided On : 20-09-2007
For the Defendant-Appellant:G.S. Bapna, Advocate.
Headnote:The joint property of J and K, the share of j inherited by R(son), K maintained R and R for his expenses of K mortgaged the share of himself. Later R ready to pay the amount spent by K in redeeming the alleged property, but R died without making payment of promised amount. Son of R, D(son of K) inherited share of R through a will executed by R. it was held that note in diary of R is conveyance so it can not change the nature of documents. The decision of first appellate court held maintainable because it rightly decreed the property in favour of successor of R. accordingly no grounds to maintain the second appeal so it dismissed.
The legal document discusses a dispute concerning the ownership and transfer of a jointly purchased property. The key issues revolve around the nature of a document (Exhibit A-9) executed by Ram Narain on 7.5.1971, which purportedly transfers his share in the property to Dev Dutt.
The court examined whether this document was a relinquishment (release) deed or a conveyance. It clarified that a relinquishment deed must be in favor of a co-owner who already has an existing right in the property, and it should operate to transfer or enlarge that right within the co-ownership context. Conversely, a conveyance involves transferring rights to a third party who is not a co-owner.
In this case, the court found that the document was not a relinquishment deed because it was not in favor of Kishan Prasad, the co-owner, but rather transferred Ram Narain's share to Dev Dutt, who was not a co-owner at the time. The court emphasized that such a transfer constitutes a conveyance, which requires proper registration and stamp duty. Since the document was not registered as a conveyance and was not executed as a registered document, its legal character was that of a conveyance, not a relinquishment.
Furthermore, the court noted that the payment of stamp duty alone does not change the fundamental nature of the document; it only affects its admissibility as evidence. The court concluded that the document did not extinguish Ram Narain's rights in the joint property as a co-owner, and thus, the transfer was not legally effective to alter the ownership rights.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the first appellate court's decision to uphold the transfer and the ownership rights of the successor was correct, and there were no grounds to interfere with that decision (!) (!) .
In summary: - The document in question is a conveyance, not a relinquishment deed, because it transfers a share to a third party rather than a co-owner. - Proper registration and stamp duty are essential for such conveyances to be legally effective. - Payment of stamp duty alone does not alter the legal nature of the document. - The transfer did not extinguish Ram Narain’s rights in the property, and his ownership rights remain intact. - The appellate court's decision was upheld, dismissing the second appeal.
"Whether Exhibit A-9 was the relinquishment deed executed by the respondent (plaintiff) in favour of the appellant (defendant)?"
(i) Whether the plaintiff and defendant are in joint possession of the suit property ?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff can claim partition of the suit property?
(iii) Whether the suit is under valued?
(iv) Whether the defendant spent money @ Rs. 80/- per month for 8 years on education of plaintiff and took loan for his marriage and for repaying the said loan, the suit property was mortgaged with bank?
(v) Whether the plaintiff agreed to give up his share in the property?
(vi) Whether Ram Narain was to pay Rs. 150/- per month to defendant?
(vii) Relief?
