Honble NAOLEKAR, J.–Facts in brief, necessary, for disposal of this writ petition are:

(2). Gyan Chand the petitioner and one Laxman Singh jointly purchased plots situated at Bhilwara by sale-deeds dated 12.3.1984 & 14.3.1984. Laxman Singh who was the joint owner of the said two plots released his shares in respect of both the plots by a deed dated 17.7.1985 titled as `Release Deed. The documents were presented for registration before the Sub- Registrar, Bhilwara. The matter was taken up under Sec. 47C(3) of the Raj. Stamps Law (Adaption) Act, 1952 by the Deputy Inspector General of Stamps ex-officio, Collector Stamps, Ajmer and the document was held to be a deed of conveyance and not `Release Deed. The petitiooner was directed to pay the additional stamp duty of Rs. 39022.75 including penalty etc.

(3). Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act before the Board of Revenue. The revision petition and, thereafter, review application, filed by the petitioner were dismissed.

(4). Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the property having been purchased by the petitioner and Laxman Singh, jointly both had joint interest in the entire property and, therefore, Laxman Singh could have released his share in the property and, the documents should not have been treated to be a deed of conveyance. The main question requires determination in this case is whether, jointly purchased property can be said to create a interest of the joint ow- ners in each others share.

(5). In Hutchi Gowder vs. Bheema Gowder (1), it has been held that the release deed can only feed title but cannot transfer title. In S.P. Chinnathambiar vs. Varanguna Rama Pandia Chinnathambiar & Anr. (2), it is held that the renunciation must be in favour of the person who has title to the estate, the effect of which is only to enlarge right. Renunciation does not vest in a person a title where it did not exist. In the Board of Revenue, Hyderabad vs. Valivety Rama Krishnaiah (3), it has been held that the release deed can only feed title but cannot transfer title and the renouncement must be in favour of a person who already has title to an estate.

(6). In Kuppuswami Chettiar vs. A.S.P.A. Arumungam Chettiar & Anr. (4), while considering the nature of deed styled as release, it is said by the Supreme Court that : ``here the deed was in favour of a person having no interest in the property, and it could not take effect as an enlargement of an existing estate. It was intended to be and was a transfer of ownership. A deed called a deed of release can, by using words of sufficient amplitude, transfer title to one having no title before the transfer. It is said that the S.P. Chinnathambiars and Hutchi Gowders case do not lay down that a deed styled a deed of release cannot, in law, transfer title to one who before the transfer had no interest in the property.

(7). It has been held by the Supreme Court in Kuppuswami Chettiars case (supra) that a registered instrument styled as release deed releasing right, title and interest of releasor without consideration may operate as transfer by way of gift when document clearly shows intention to effect transfer and is signed by or on behalf of releasor and attested by at least two witnesses. This case is on point that although the document is styled as release deed, it can be treated in given facts and circumstances to be a transfer deed conveying title.

(8). Aforementioned decision lays down that deed of release can enlarge title where there is one but can not create title where there is none. The release deed can be construed to be a deed of transfer conveying interest in the property.

(9). Under Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 where immovable property is transferred for consideration to two or more persons jointly makes them co-owners of the property transferred, their interest are in proportion to the share of the consideration they have

Click Here to Read the rest of this document