ABDUL RASHEED Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petitions filed by the same person, are concerned with an identical issue. The subject matter arises from different transactions by a Company; named M/S Heera Summer Holiday Homes (P) Ltd. The petitioner is the Managing Director (M.D) of the Company, which owned certain properties having substantial extents and executed instruments styled as settlement deeds, the stamp duty leviable in which, is the issue arising. Each of the documents need not be referred to, suffice it to notice that the Company settled different extents of property on the three children of the petitioner. The consideration shown in all the documents, was love and affection towards the respective beneficiary.

(2.) The documents were produced for registration before the Sub Registrar, the 4th respondent herein. When the documents were produced, initially registration fee was levied on the premise of it being a settlement deed. At the time of registration, on closer scrutiny, it was found that the executant was a Company, who settled the properties on the children of the M.D. The Sub Registrar treated the transaction to be a gift and directed payment of deficient registration fees and stamp duty. The presenter expressed his helplessness for want of sufficient funds and undertook to pay the deficient amounts as determined by the District Registrar. The Sub-Registrar hence impounded the documents and sent it to the District Registrar (General) for determination of stamp duty. One of the orders passed, as evidenced at Ext.P3 in W.P.(C) No.16061 of 2017 is referred to.

(3.) The District Registrar found that the executant was a Company and hence there can be no settlement effected as defined in Section 2(q) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (for brevity 'the Stamp Act'). Article 51(1) of the Stamp Act was found to be not applicable, since the settlement is not in favour of father, mother, husband, wife, son, daughter, brother or sister of a person. The execution was not by a person as understood in the said Article. It was found that the deed is one of gift and stamp duty is leviable under Article 31(ii) of the Stamp Act. The stamp duty leviable was determined under Article 31(ii) of the Stamp Act. When the person who produced the document, the petitioner was asked to remit the balance stamp duty and registration fees, he expressed his helplessness, for reason of his inability to generate sufficient funds. Appeals to the Land Revenue Commissioner failed, one of which is seen at Ext.P4. The petitioner was served with demand notices for the amounts due, as per Exhibit P-5, produced in all the writ petitions.