Back
2003 Supreme(Mad) 15
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE E. PADMANABHAN
T.Dulip Singh - Appellant
Versus
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority & Inspector General of Registration Kamarajar Salai and Another - Respondents
W.P. NO. 18391 OF 2000
Decided On : 08 January 2003
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Property Law
Headnote
Stamp Duty - Deed of Conveyance - Indian Stamp Act, 1899, Section 55-A - The court held that the instrument in question is a deed of conveyance and not a release as contended by the petitioner. The court referred to the recitals in the instrument and the nature of the transaction to determine that it is a deed of conveyance. The court also discussed the relevant legal provisions and case laws to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired partner of a law firm, sought a refund of excess stamp duty paid on a document, contending it to be a deed of release. The respondents treated the document as a deed of conveyance and upheld the stamp duty assessment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the instrument in question is a deed of conveyance and not a release, based on the recitals in the instrument and the nature of the transaction.
Issues: The issues were whether the instrument is a deed of conveyance or a release, whether the court should interfere with the impugned order, and whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of stamp duty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the instrument's recitals, the nature of the transaction, and relevant legal provisions, concluding that it is a deed of conveyance.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the respondents' treatment of the document as a deed of conveyance and the assessment of stamp duty.
1. The writ petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records comprised in proceedings of the first respondent in Pa.Mu.No.50470/E3/97 dated 3.11.1998 confirming the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Pa.Mu.No.72582/E3/93 dated 5.6.95, quash the same and direct the respondent to refund the excess stamp duty collected by the respondents to the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr.R.Premkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms.V.Velumani, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. With the consent of either side, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
3. According to the petitioner, a senior member of the Madras Bar, he joined the firm of M/s.King and Patridge in the year 1967 carrying on business as Advocates and Solicitors. The petitioner became a partner of the firm on 1.10.1979, which firm has located its branches in Madras, Ooty, Bangalore and Hyderabad. The firm purchased a property in Ooty known as Brambly Lodge, hereinafter referred to as the property. The property is shown as the property of the firm in the books of accounts of the firm as well as in its balance sheet. For the purpose of administrative convenience, it was decided to bifurcate the Bangalore Branch from Madras and to have two separate firms so that the Madras firm will function within the territory of Tamil Nadu and the other firm at Bangalore. It was also decided to have a parent firm, viz., King and Patridge Holding, which holding firm continued to hold the property in Ooty.
4. There were six partners in the said firm on 1.4.1990. The petitioner is holding 40% of the interest in the said firm. The partnership deed was registered on 1.4.90 and it was registered with Registrar of Firms. The petitioner retired from the partnership firm on 15.6.1992, which was accepted by the remaining partners. Consequent to the retirement, the share value or interest due to the petitioner was arrived at Rs.6,04,350/=, under the capital account, while the remaining partners were entitled to Rs.9,25,650/= together. The five other partners, who are holding 60% of interest, opted to release their undivided right, title and interest in favour of the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.9,25,650/= being the value of their share. The remaining partners executed a deed of release on 30.6.92 in favour of the petitioner in consideration of their receiving Rs.9,25,650/=.
5. The said release deed was presented for registration. After protracted correspondence, the 2nd respondent adjudicated the document as a deed of conveyance for the purpose of stamp duty and called upon the petitioner to pay Rs.1,46,460/= towards deficit stamp duty and Rs.60/= towards penalty. Under protest the petitioner paid the said amount and registration of document No.527/97 was completed. The petitioner moved an appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent also confirmed the view taken by the 2nd respondent and held that the document in question is a deed of conveyance by proceedings dated 3.11.98. The first respondent dismissed the appeal by proceedings dated 3.11.98. The petitioner moved for reconsideration, but such personal representation to reconsider did not yield any result. Hence, the present writ petition.
6. According to the petitioner, the document in question is a deed of release of interest and the respondents have acted with illegality in treating the document as an instrument of conveyance, which is against the ratio of this Court in T.K.SUBRAMANIAM & ANOTHER VS. CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY (STAMPS) & INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION , MADRAS & ANOTHER reported in AIR 1987 MADRAS 260 and the Full Bench judgment in BOARD OF REVENUE & ANOTHER VS. V.M.MURUGESA MUDALIAR OF GUDIYATHAM reported in AIR 1955 MADRAS 641. It is further contended that the respondents have misunderstood the difference between sale and release and this has resulted in miscarriage of
