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

1983 Supreme(All) 290

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Satish Chandra, C. J., H. N. Seth and A. B. Banerji, JJ.
SMT.BALWANT KAUR AND ORS. - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. - Respondents
S. A. R. Case 129 Of 1980
Decided On : 10/20/1983

Advocates Appeared:
A.Hajela

H. N. SETH, J.


( 1 ) BY this reference under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act (herein-after referred to as the act), the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority seeks the opinion of this Court with regard to stamp duty payable on a document dated 9th March, 1970 executed by two sisters Smt. Balwant kaur and Smt Pritam Kaur.

( 2 ) ONE Sardar Waryam Singh died on 26th February, 1970 leaving behind his widow Smt. Jiwan devi, son Sardar Kuldeep Singh and two daughters Smt. Balwant Kaur and Smt. Pritam Kaur as his heirs and legal representatives. Subsequently on 9tfa March, 1970 the two daughters of sardar Waryam Singh, namely, Smt. Balwant Kaur and Smt. Pritam Kaur executed a document describing themselves as the first party and their brother Sardar Kuldeep Singh and mother Jiwan devi as the second party. That document contained following stipulation :-" that in consideration of the receipt of a total sum of Rs. 2,200/- to be shared equally by the first party, they hereby release nil the properties movable and immovable possessed or owned by sardar Waryam Singh, deceased at the time of his death from all their claims to any share or interest in the said properties or assets and declares that the said properties and assets will be free from all claim of any nature whatsoever against the said properties or assets by them or any person or persons claiming through either of them and neither they will claim any right or interest at any time hereafter in any property or assets which may be inherited by the second party from Sardar Wariam Singh deceased. "

( 3 ) WHEN the said deed was presented for registration the Chief Sub-Registrar came to the conclusion that even though the document, on the face of it, appeared to be a deed of release, it in fact was a deed of conveyance by which the two executants had conveyed their share in the properties inherited by them from their father to their mother and brother for a consideration. as in his opinion the deed was deficiently stamped, he, after impounding the same, forwarded it to the Collector for necessary action under Section 38 of the Act. The Collector after considering the objections raised by Sardar Kuldeep Singh and his mother Smt Jiwan Devi, agreed with the view of the Chief Sub-Registrar that the said document was in fact a deed of conveyance, and directed the Tehsildar to ascertain the market value of the properties and business assets left by sardar Waryam Singh. The Tehsildar reported that market value of the two houses left by the deceased was Rupees 70,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- respectively. But then he was unable to ascertain the value of the business assets left by the deceased However, the Collector acting under Section 56 of the Act referred the matter-for decision to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority.

( 4 ) AFTER considering the submissions made on behalf of the objectors and the Department, the chief Controlling Revenue Authority came to the conclusion that the two sisters, namely, Smt. Balwant Kaur and Smt Pritam Kaur had along with their brother and mother inherited the properties left by their father in terms of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as tenants-in-common and not as co-owners. It noticed a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority v. Rustom Nusserwanji Patel, AIR 1968 Mad 159, and observed that under the law a release can be made by one co-owner in favour of another co-owner where title to the property already exists and he is just as much seized of the whole as the release or himself. As in the instant case the two sisters along with their mother and brother owned the property left by their father as tenants-in-common and not co-owners, they were incompetent to release their share. In the result it concluded that the document in question was a conveyance and not a release and answered the reference made to it accordingly. It, however, directed the Collector to determine the market value of the property i





















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