$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 27^th January, 2026 + W.P.(C) 8125/2024 PRANEET SINGH DAVAR & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Akshay Makhija, Senior Advocate with Ms. Roshni Namboodiry, Advocate.

versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Sunieta Ojha & Ms. Vasudha Priyancha, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent/Municipal Corporation of Delhi (‘MCD’) to mutate/transfer the property situated at A-1, Greater Kailash 1, New Delhi (hereinafter the ‘subject property’), in the names of the petitioners.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that the aforesaid property came to the share of the petitioners in terms of a family settlement. Based on the aforesaid family settlement, a decree was passed by this Court on 12^th November, 2020 in CS (OS) 2540/2015, titled “M/s L.S. Davar & Company & Ors. v. Praneet Singh Davar”.

3. The Registry of this Court did not demand stamp duty at the time of preparation of the decree. Subsequently, on 5^th April, 2021 the aforesaid decree was registered by the concerned Sub-Registrar without levying any stamp duty (page nos. 30-33 of the documents filed along with the petition).

4. On 21^st January, 2021, the petitioners filed an application before the respondent/MCD seeking mutation of the property on the basis of the aforesaid decree.

5. The respondent/MCD raised an objection vide its communication dated 22^nd March, 2021. The relevant extracts from the aforesaid letter with regard to the objection relating to the transfer duty and stamp duty is set out below:

“11. As per documents available property Purchased M/S L.S. Davar & Co. and by virtue of settlement said property stands transferred (sic) in Favour of Mr. Praneet Singh Davar; Bhavish Singh Davar & Master Ahaan Singh Davar. In case of such transfer of the property appropriate Regd. Transfer (sic) duty & Stamp Duty paid documents is required for mutationof saidproperty.”

6. Mr. Makhija, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that all remaining documents sought by the MCD including challans of property tax paid in respect of the subject property have been duly submitted.

7. Since the respondent/MCD failed to mutate the property in the name of the petitioners, the present petition has been filed.

8. It is the contention of the petitioners that no stamp duty is required to be paid as the property came to the share of the petitioners pursuant to the family settlement recorded in the decree passed by this Court.

9. In this regard, petitioners have placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, (1976) 3 SCC 119, Nitin Jain v. Anuj Jain, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 582 and Himani Walia v. Hemant Walia, 2022 SCC Online Del 893.

10. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent/MCD, it is stated that the aforesaid property was always assessed in the name of the partnership firm ‘L.S. Davar & Co.’. The transfer of the subject property in the name of the petitioners would amount to creation of a new right in the property and hence, the petitioners would be liable to pay stamp duty/

transfer duty.

11. I have heard counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

12. To begin with, a reference may be made to the judgments relied upon by the petitioners. In Kale (supra), the Supreme Court laid down the essential elements of a family settlement. The relevant extracts from the said judgment are set out below:

“10. In other words to put the binding effect and the essentials of a family settlement in a concretised form, the matter may be reduced intotheformof thefollowingpropositions:

“(1) The family settlement must be a bona fide one so as to resolve family disputes and rival claims by a fair and equitable division or allotment of properties betweenthevarious members of thefamily;

(2) The said settlement must be voluntary and should not