K V KISHORE Vs. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN or about the year 1957, the City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore, allotted a plot measuring 83' x 120' (total 9,960 sq. ft.) in Jaya Nagar, Bangalore, in favour of one A. Srinivasan. He died in the year 1962 leaving behind as his heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, his wife, a son and three daughters. When succession was opened by the demise of the father, each one of the aforesaid class 1 heirs secured a quantified share in the property left behind by A. Srinivasan. On 8th April, 1987, a family arrangement was entered into under the terms of which it was agreed that the son (4th respondent herein) would take 26%, the wife (5th respondent) 23% and each one of the daughters (respondents Nos. 6 to 8) 17% out of the aforesaid property.

(2.) THE petitioner in W.P. No. 15951 of 1988, the father and the petitioner in W.P. No. 4537 of 1988 who is his son, approached respondents Nos. 4 to 8 with an offer to purchase, and an agreement was entered into between these two petitioners and respondents Nos. 4 to 8 on 28th Jan., 1988. Some of the relevant terms of this agreement have to be noticed for the purpose of deciding the point in issue in these writ petitions. After narrating that under the family arrangement, each one of respondents Nos. 4 to 8 obtained definite shares out of this property, the agreement states that the vendors had agreed to sell his/her respective undivided interest in the property for a sale consideration as narrated hereunder :

(3.) IN challenging the said impugned order, though the petitioners have raised certain contentions in the affidavit questioning the constitutional validity of Chapter XX -C of the IT Act, at the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners does not press that contention on the plea that one of the petitioners has filed a separate writ petition raising that ground and that is pending. Therefore, in these writ petitions, learned counsel would restrict his submissions only to the following contentions, namely, that the provisions of Chapter XX -C of the IT Act are not attracted when an immovable property of value less than ten lakhs rupees is to be transferred by way of conveyance and, in the instant case, the agreement should be understood as one under which the quantified undivided share in the immovable property is being sold by the individual owners thereof and the sale consideration for such conveyance of the individual shares being less than Rs. 10,00,000, the impugned order made under Chapter XX -C of the IT Act cannot be sustained. To state more elaborately, the contention of the petitioner is that, on the death of A. Srinivasan, respondents Nos. 4 to 8 being the heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, their shares became fixed and quantified on the date of the demise of their father and it is in that backdrop, they entered into a family arrangement under which each one was allotted a definite share in this immovable property thereby meaning that each one has become the absolute owner of the undivided share. It is further contended that each such sharer is entitled to deal with such share without any restraint or co -operation or consent from other sharers. Nothing can prevent each individual sharer from conveying his/her own share. It is the contention of the petitioners that, in effect and in law, though one single agreement had been entered into, respondents Nos. 4 to 8 were individual parties and, under that agreement, each one of the respondents had agreed to convey his/her absolute interest in the immovable property and the conveyance should be understood as conveyances by each of the sharers. If viewed from that angle, the value of the share so conveyed being less than Rs. 10,00,000, the provisions of Chapter XX -C of the IT Act would not be attracted.