SAKINA BI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.12.1994 calling upon the petitioners to pay enhanced stamp duty on the release deed dated 29.3.1993 and for a direction to the respondents to register the aforesaid release deed. Facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows: One Mrs.Bathul Bai, wife of Sheik Yousuf Bai was owner of undivided 7/41 share in the immovable properties known as "Rangawala Estate". She bequeathed her share in favour of her son Mr.Kuthbudeen by a Will dated 16.4.1982. Other legal heirs of Mrs.Bathul Bai confirmed the Will in favour of Kuthbudeen by executing a registered document. Thereafter in partition among various co-sharers under the registered deed of partition dated 24.6.1987, Kuthbudeen was allotted a property bearing Door No.179, Linghi Chetty Street, Madras towards his 7/41 share in immovable properties of Rangwala Estate and thus became the sole and absolute owner of the said property. Thereafter Kuthbudeen sold undivided half share in the said property to the present petitioners under a registered sale deed dated 21.7.1989 and thus Kuthbudeen and the present petitioners became co-owners of the said property. Thereafter the aforesaid parties entered into an agreement agreeing to divide the rental collection from the said property, 50% going to Kuthbudeen and 50% to the present petitioners and for facilitating collection of rent, a joint bank account was opened in the name of the aforesaid persons. The property was also jointly recorded in the name of the aforesaid persons in the Register of Corporation of Madras and Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Seweage Board. Subsequently Kuthbudeen released his undivided half share in the property in favour of the petitioners under a release deed dated 29.3.1993, wherein it was recited that a sum of Rs.2 lakhs was paid and balance of Rs.75,000 was to be paid. Said release deed was sought to be registered, but the fourth respondent treating the same as a deed of conveyance under Art.23 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act, called upon the petitioners to pay the stamp duty accordingly. It is the case of the petitioners that the deed being a release deed falling under Art.55-A, the petitioners are not liable to pay enhanced stamp duty demanded from them by the fourth respondent and subsequently reiterated by other authorities, namely the respondents 2 and 3. Orders of the aforesaid three respondents including that of the second respondent, the Revisional authority, are challenged.

(2.) REVISIONAL authority appears to have concluded that since the petitioners, who were subsequent purchasers of half shares from Kuthbudeen are not co-heirs or joint purchasers, they cannot be treated as co-owners and as such the deed or release must be considered as a deed of conveyance.

(3.) THE revision authority has also observed that the parties wanted to give a colour that the transaction was one of release, but actually it was a deed of conveyance. However, this conclusion is based on any tangible material on record. On the other hand the circumstances clearly indicate that even though for a considerable period the parties continued as joint owners or co-owners, subsequently the deed of release was executed. Considering the gap of time (deed of release was executed three years and eight months after the purchase of original half share by the petitioners) it cannot be said that the document was colourable pretense to screen the actual conveyance.