Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J
Kankanaala Thirupathamma, W/o Damodar Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Valpudas Veeraswamy, S/o Narsaiah – Respondent
What is the true nature of a document labeled as a Will but operating immediately to transfer property?
Key Points: - The revision challenges the trial court's order dated 05.08.2019 holding that the document dated 13.04.1985 cannot be received in evidence due to lack of stamp duty and registration (!) (!) . - Petitioners claim ownership of suit land in Sy.Nos.327, 331, 332, 335, and 336 based on a document dated 13.04.1985 executed by their mother, styled as a 'Will deed' (!) (!) (!) . - Trial court ruled the document is a Gift deed requiring stamp duty and registration, as its recitals show immediate transfer of property and possession (!) (!) . - A Will operates on the death of the testator and is revocable, while a Gift takes effect immediately with transfer in praesenti (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The document dated 13.04.1985 transfers property and possession immediately to petitioners, directs them to pay cess, and allows mutation in records, making it a Gift deed despite its title (!) (!) . - Supreme Court in Mathai Samuel v. Eapen Eapen (2012) 13 SCC 80 holds that document nature depends on its contents and disposition, not nomenclature (!) (!) (!) . - High Court affirms trial court's conclusion, holding the document requires registration under Registration Act, 1908 Section 17 and stamp duty (!) . - Revision petition is dismissed (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis of ownership dispute. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
ORDER :
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.
This Revision is directed against the order dated 05.08.2019 in OS.No.572 of 2010 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, whereby and whereunder the trial Court held that the document dated 13.04.1985 cannot be received in evidence for want of stamp duty and registration.
2. Heard Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel for petitioners, and Sri M.N.Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for respondents.
3. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents herein are the defendants in the suit.
4. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners filed the suit-OS.No.572 of 2010 seeking the following reliefs:-
(i) to declare that the plaintiffs are entitled to entry showing them as pattadars in possession of Acs.2.00 guntas of land including well in Sy.No.327, 331, 332, 335 and 336 of Kadipikonda Village deleting the entry showing the defendant Nos.1 and 2 as pattadar of said land and consequently, to direct the Tahsildar, Hanamkonda to issue patta pass book and title deed pass book in favour of plaintiff in respect of the land in Survey Nos.327, 331, 332, 335 an
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
