Back
2009(2) Supreme 344
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.V. Raveendran and J.M. Panchal, JJ.
S.N. Mathur — Appellant
versus
Board of Revenue & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4916 of 2003
Decided on : 18-02-2009
(b)Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Section 2(24) – Settlement – Not only instruments which are non-testamentary dispositions of property for any religious or charitable purpose, but also declarations of trust which record the terms of such disposition, are settlements. (Para 8)
AIR 1971 SC 240; AIR 1973 SC 2485 – Relied upon.
(c)Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Section 2(24) – Disposition – ‘Disposition’ is a term of wide import which encompasses any devise or mode by which property can pass and includes giving away or giving up by a person of something which was his own – Word “disposition” refers to a bilateral or multilateral act of transfer and will not apply to a unilateral act as, for example, when a person treats his individual property as a joint family property. (Para 8)
AIR 1970 SC 1722 – Relied upon.
(d)Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Section 2(24) – The three executants of the Trust deed divesting themselves of ownership of the property transferring it to the Trust represented by five trustees – Thus there being a disposition for religious and charitable purposes, the instrument is a “settlement”. (Para 8)
AIR 1947 Allahabad 141; AIR 1981 Mad. 193; AIR 1991 MP 247 – Distinguished.
AIR 1972 Delhi 128 – Referred.
(e)Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Section 6 – Stamp duty leviable under a deed of settlement under Article 58 is more than the stamp duty leviable in regard to a deed of trust under Article 64 – Authorities rightly holding the instrument to be chargeable with the higher duty prescribed under Article 58 applicable to a settlement. (Para 8)
Facts of the case :
1.A deed of trust dated 9.8.1991 was executed by the appellant and his two brothers.
2.The executants paid a stamp duty of Rs. 1,325/ thereon, under Article 64 of Schedule I-B to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as amended in U.P. The registering authority being of the view that it was not duly stamped, impounded it and referred it to the adjudicating authority. The said Authority made an order that the deed also answered the definition of “settlement” as defined under section 2(24) of the Act, and therefore stamp duty was payable under Article 58 of Schedule I-B of the Act on the declared value of the trust property (Rs.2,10,000/-). He directed recovery of deficit stamp duty of Rs.10,225/- and an equal amount as penalty.
3.The revisional authority dismissed the revision.
4.The High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Finding of the Court :
The deed is leviable stamp duty under Article 58.
Result : Penalty reduced to Rs.5/-
JUDGMENT
R.V. Raveendran, J. —
This appeal relates to the stamp duty payable in regard to a deed of trust dated 9.8.1991 executed by the appellant and his two brothers. The executants paid a stamp duty of Rs. 1,325/ thereon, under Article 64 of Schedule I-B to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as amended in U.P. (‘Act’ for short). The registering authority being of the view that it was not duly stamped, impounded it and referred it to the adjudicating authority. The said Authority made an order that the deed also answered the definition of “settlement” as defined under section 2(24) of the Act, and therefore stamp duty was payable under Article 58 of Schedule I-B of the Act on the declared value of the trust property (Rs.2,10,000/-). He directed recovery of deficit stamp duty of Rs.10,225/- and an equal amount as penalty. The said order was challenged by the appellant by filing a revision before the Chief Controller (Board of Revenue), Allahahad. The revisional authority dismissed the revision by order dated 21.5.1996. The appellant challenged the said order in Writ Petition No.54 of 2002. The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the authority under the Stamp Act did not commit any error in construing the instrument to be a “settlement” as defined under section 2(24) of the Act and that stamp duty was payable under Article 58. The said order is challenged in this appeal.
2.The title part of the instrument reads thus : “This deed of Private Trust is made on 9.8.1991 by (names of three Donor Trustees) in order to preserve, protect and manage the property known as ‘Mathur Atithi Shala’ situated at Chitrakoot, on the following terms and conditions :” The preamble to the instrument recites that the said property was the self-acquired property of their father and he had constructed the Atithi Shala therein for housing the pilgrims, and the said property is being used for the said purpose ever since then; that they (the three donor Trustees) had inherited the said property from their father and they possess and own the said ‘Mathur Atithi Shala’ and have full disposing power; that as they were no longer able to manage the property, they decided to form a private trust consisting of the member of the family to look after the said property and have accordingly created the said trust to be known as ‘Shri Jamuna Janki Mathur Trust’ for the due preservation, protection and management of the said property. The operative portion of the said deed states :
“The Donor Trustees in pursuance of their wish and desire as aforesaid do hereby grant, convey and transfer all that property i.e. ‘Mathur Atithishala’ described in the Schedule hereto, unto and to the use of the Trustees to HAVE AND TO HOLD the same in trust for the said donor trustees subject to such powers and limitations as are hereinafter specified. It is made clear that the Trust shall own, possess and manage the Trust Property once and for all.”
The deed thereafter proceeded to set down the objects of the Trust which are charitable and religious in nature. It also constituted a Board of Trustees consisting of the three donors and two other family members and an Executive Committee consisting of ten members. It also provided the eligibility criteria for being appointed as a trustee, the term of office of the trustees, the circumstances in which the trustees will cease to hold the office and the powers and duties of the trustees.
3.The appellant submitted that the terms of the instrument clearly make out that it was a deed of trust and not a deed of settlement. Reliance is placed on three Full Bench decisions, namely, Narendra Singh Ju Deo v. Junior Secretary, Board of Revenue1 [AIR 1947 Allahabad 141] The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue v. T Ranganathan Pillai2 [AIR 1981 Mad. 193] and Sardar Deorao Jadhav v. State of Madhya Pradesh3 [AIR 1991 MP 247].
4.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and the authorities under the Stamp Act (respondents 1 to 4)
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
