SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1980 Supreme(Mad) 432

Madras High Court
ISMAIL,SATHAR SAYEED,SENGOTTUVELAN
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, Madras - Appellant
Versus
T.Ranganathan Pillai - Respondent
Decided On : 11/10/1980

Advocates:
N.R. Chandran, Addl. Govt. Pleader, for Petitioner; R.G. Rajan, for Respondent

A document transferring property to a trustee for the benefit of the settlor's family is a trust deed and not a settlement deed if it does not fall within the definition of a settlement deed under S.2 (24) of the Stamp Act.

Headnote:

STAMP ACT - SETTLEMENT DEED - TRUST DEED - DISTINCTION - DOCUMENT EXECUTED BY RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF HIS MOTHER'S SISTER'S HUSBAND - WHETHER SETTLEMENT DEED OR TRUST DEED - HELD, TRUST DEED - CHARGEABLE TO STAMP DUTY UNDER ART.64 CLAUSE (A) AS DECLARATION OF TRUST AND NOT UNDER ART.58 AS SETTLEMENT.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent executed a document in favor of his mother's sister's husband, transferring all his properties to him by way of trust for the benefit of his family. The document recited that the respondent was inexperienced and unable to manage his own properties, and that he had incurred debts which he was unable to discharge. The respondent argued that the document was a trust deed and liable to be stamped as such under Art.64-A of Schedule I to the Stamp Act, while the Revenue Department argued that it was a settlement deed and liable to be stamped as such under Art.58-A of Schedule I to the Stamp Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the document was a trust deed and not a settlement deed. The court noted that the document did not fall within the definition of a settlement deed under S.2 (24) of the Stamp Act, as it was not made in consideration of marriage, for the purpose of distributing property among the settlor's family or those for whom he desired to provide, or for any religious or charitable purpose. The court also held that the document was not an agreement in writing to make a disposition of property, or an instrument recording the terms of such a disposition, as required by the inclusive portion of the definition of a settlement deed.

Issues: Whether the document executed by the respondent was a settlement deed or a trust deed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the document was a trust deed and not a settlement deed because it did not fall within the definition of a settlement deed under S.2 (24) of the Stamp Act. The court also held that the document was not an agreement in writing to make a disposition of property, or an instrument recording the terms of such a disposition, as required by the inclusive portion of the definition of a settlement deed.

Final Decision: The court answered the question referred to it by stating that the document in question was chargeable to stamp duty under Art.64 clause (a) as a declaration of trust and not under Art.58 as a settlement as defined in Sec.2 (24) of the Indian Stamp Act 1899.

Judgement

ISMAIL, C.J.:-In this reference made under Sec.57 of the Indian Stamp Act (Central Act II of 1899), the question that requires to be considered, as set forth by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, Madras, is-

"Whether the document dated 5th November 1975 executed by the respondent and purporting to be a trust deed is just a trust deed and liable to be stamped as such under Art.64-A of Schedule I to the Stamp Act or is a settlement deed as defined under S.2 (24) of the Stamp Act and therefore liable to be stamped as such under Art.58-A of Schedule I to the Stamp Act?"

Before referring to the concept of a settlement deed or a trust deed as defined in the Act or as known to the law, we would like to refer to the terms of the document in question since ultimately it is the terms of the document which will determine the character of the transaction. The document was executed by the respondent, T. Ranganathan Pillai, on 5th November, 1975 in favour of his mother's sister's husband. In the document it is recited that even during the lifetime of his father, the respondent and his brothers became divided from the father and because of his inexperience and inability to manage his own properties, his father, in the interest of the family, was managing the properties of the respondent also and that after the death of the father on 8th February 1975, the respondent did not have any assistance or help from proper persons for the management of the properties and therefore had experienced several difficulties. The document also points out that persons who were prepared to take advantage of the inexperience of the respondent and injure him were not wanting. It is in such a situation he thought about the best method of preserving the properties for the benefit of himself and the members of the family and, on the advice of and in consultation with his paternal uncle and others who were interested in the affairs of the family, he came to the conclusion that the only method of dealing with the situation was to create a trust in respect of his properties for the benefit of his family and himself. It is in view of this conclusion he was executing the document. He further pointed out that there were debts incurred by his father and his share of the debts had also not been discharged and he had executed a power of attorney in favour of his brother Peria Thiruvadia Pillai in connection with the discharge of those debts and he had to support his wife Krishnaveniammal and his daughter Parvathi out of his estate. The document further states that in view of the drought, the properties were not yielding any income and he was finding it difficult even to maintain himself and his family and, in the prevailing situation, he had to incur debts for the purpose of running the family itself. Under these circumstances, for the purpose of properly maintaining himself and his family he was creating a trust in respect of the properties in favour of his mother's sister's husband, S.S. Muthukumaraswamia Pillai. The document recites that he was transferring all his properties in favour of the said Muthukumaraswamia Pillai, by way of trust, so that in the interest of the family of the respondent, he could absolutely administer, enjoy and deal with the properties. One of the recitals in the document says that in his capacity as trustee, the said Muthukumaraswamia Pillai will realise the income from the properties and maintain the respondent and the members of the family and the said Muthukumaraswamia Pillai, in his discretion can enjoy the properties directly or by leasing out and he should maintain correct accounts in respect of the income and expenditure of the estate, even though, having regard to the confidence he had reposed in the said Muthukumaraswamia Pillai, he had no right to question the correctness of the accounts maintained by him or take proceedings against him with reference thereto. It also states that if the trustee feels a tr








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top