The Delhi High Court on May 20, 2020, passed orders in the matters of Tripta Kaushik ("Petitioner no. 1") vs Sub Registrar VI-A, Delhi & and. ("Respondent no. 1"), W.P.(C) 9193/2019 ("Petition no. 1") and Ramesh Sharma ("Petitioner no. 2") vs. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi & ors. ("Respondent no. 2"), W.P. (C) 3560/2018 ("Petition no. 2"). The Delhi High Court dealt with the above-mentioned two writ petitions together as both involved similar questions of law.
Facts of the case:
The Petition no. 1 was filed by the Petitioner no. 1 challenging the order dated March 5, 2019 passed by the Respondent no. 1 impounding the relinquishment deed dated March 1, 2019 executed by the son of the Petitioner no. 1, Kapil Kaushik, in favour of the Petitioner no. 1, with respect to the property bearing No. B-123, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi. The said property was acquired by late Shri. Brijesh Kumar Kaushik, and upon his death, the Delhi Development Authority executed a conveyance deed dated April 7, 2000 with respect to the said property in favour of the Petitioner no. 1 and her son Kapil Kaushik. By the said relinquishment deed, son of the Petitioner no. 1, sought to release/relinquish his rights in the said property in favour of the Petitioner no. 1. By the impugned order dated March 5, 2019, the respondent no. 1, however, impounded the said document treating the same to be a gift under Article 33 of Schedule IA of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (“Act”) as applicable to the Union Territory of Delhi and held that the release deed as deficiently stamped and impounded the same. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petition no. 1 was filed by the Petitioner no. 1.
The Petition no. 2 was filed by the Petitioner no. 2 challenging the order dated March 1, 2013 passed by the Respondent no. 2 impounding the relinquishment deed(s) executed by the sisters of the Petitioner no. 2 in favour of the Petitioner no. 2 with respect to their share in the property bearing No. E- 67, Greater Kailash, Part-II, New Delhi, holding that the said relinquishment deeds (five in number; three dated 06.07.2012 and two dated 17.07.2012) are liable to be stamped as ‘Gift’ under Article 33 of the Act. The said property was purchased by the parents of the Petitioner no. 2, Late Shri Jagdish Prashad Sharma and Smt. Shanti Devi, vide a registered sale deed dated July 10, 1972. The Petitioner no. 2 claims that Late Shri Jagdish Prashad Sharma bequeathed his half share in the property in favour of the Petitioner no. 2 by way of a will registered on September 24, 2001. Late Shri Jagdish Prashad Sharma expired on October 31, 2003, leaving behind his wife, the Petitioner no. 2 and his five daughters as the only Class I heirs. The three sisters of the Petitioner no. 2 executed three separate relinquishment deeds in favour of the Petitioner no. 2 on July 3, 2012 relinquishing their share in the property in favour of the Petitioner no. 2. The remaining two sisters relinquished their share in the property in favour of the Petitioner 2 by way of two separate relinquishment deeds both dated July 17, 2012. On presentation of the deeds for registration, they were first impounded by the Respondent no. 2 vide order dated March 1, 2013 and later, the Respondent no. 2, vide impugned order dated May 15, 2013, assessed deficient Stamp Duty as Rs. 6,60,257/- (Rupees Six Lacs Sixty Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty-Seven) and levied a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 (One Lac). The Petitioner no. 2 feeling aggrieved by the above orders, filed the Petition no. 2.
Findings of the court:
a) In determining whether the document is a release or gift/conveyance, the nomenclature used to describe the document or the language which the party may choose to employ in framing the document, is not a decisive factor. What is decisive is the actual character of the transaction intended by the executants;
b) Determination of the nature of the document is not a pure question of law;
c) Where a co-owner renounced his right in a property in favour of the other co-owner, mere use of word like “consideration” and “transfer” would not affect the true character of the transaction;
d) What is intended by a release deed is the relinquishment of the right of the co-owner;
e) Co-ownership need not be only through inheritance, but can also be through purchase;
f) Where the relinquishment of the right by the co-owner(s) is only in favour of one of the co-owners and not in favour of all other co-owners (other than the releasing co-owners), the document would be ‘Gift’ and not "Release". However, if the relinquishment of the right is by the releasing co-owners in favour of all other co-owners, it would amount to “Release”.
Contributed by Harshita Jagwani (Associate).
Download Pdf
7A, 7th Floor, Tower C, Max House,
Okhla Industrial Area, Phase 3,
New Delhi – 110020
+91 11 23701284/5/7
The rules of the Bar Council of India do not permit advocates to solicit work or advertise in any manner. This website has been created only for informational purposes and is not intended to constitute solicitation, invitation, advertisement or inducement of any sort whatsoever from us or any of our members to solicit any work in any manner. By clicking on 'Agree' below, you acknowledge and confirm the following:
a) there has been no solicitation, invitation, advertisement or inducement of any sort whatsoever from us or any of our members to solicit any work through this website;
b) you are desirous of obtaining further information about us on your own accord and for your use;
c) no information or material provided on this website is to be construed as a legal opinion and use of this website will not create any lawyer-client relationship;
d) while reasonable care has been taken in ensuring the accuracy of the contents of the website, Argus Partners shall not be responsible for the results of any actions taken on the basis of information provided in this website or for any error or omission in the website; and
e) in cases where the user has any legal issues, the user must seek independent legal advice.