MOHAN A Vs. VIVEKANANDAN DR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS the parties in these two writ petitions and the points involved are one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order. On December 29, 1977, the first respondent executed a settlement deed in favour of the petitioner settling his half share in an extent of 17.34 acres in S. Nos. 101/1, 101/2, 101/3 and 103/1 in Anuppur village. The value of the half share, settled by the first respondent in favour of the petitioner, is given in the settlement deed dated December 29, 1977, as Rs. 41,000 and the value of the entire property measuring 17.34 acres is given as Rs. 80,700. Again, on January 7, 1978, the first respondent executed another settlement deed in favour of the petitioner settling his half share in an extent of 11.80 acres in S. No. 98/1 in Anuppur village and S. No. 45/2 in Velalapatti village. In the settlement deed dated January 7, 1978, the value of the half share settled in favour of the petitioner is given as Rs. 31,000 and the value of the entire extent of 11.80 acres is given as Rs. 62,000. According to the petitioner, the first respondent is entitled only on a half share in the entire are of 17.34 acres of land dealt with in the settlement deed dated dated December 29, 1977, and a similar half share in the entire extent of 11.80 acres dealt with in the settlement deed dated January 7, 1978. The settlement deeds dated December 29, 1977, and January 7, 1978, were presented for registration before the second respondent. AS the value of the entire extent of the lands settled under the two documents exceeded Rs. 50,000, the second respondent took the view that the documents dated December 29, 1977, and January 7, 1978, could be registered only on production of the certificates under section 230A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The first respondent who is the executant of the settlement deeds, by letter dated August 3, 1979, informed the second respondent of his inability to produce the certificate under section 230A(1) of the Act. Thereupon, the second respondent, by separate orders, on September 12, 1979, refused to register the settlement deeds dated December 29, 1977, and January 7, 1978, on the ground that the certificate under section 230A(1) of the Act was not produced. AS against the order of the second respondent refusing to register the settlement deeds dated December 29, 1977, and January 7, 1978, the petitioner filed appeals A.P. Nos. 2/79 and 3/79, respectively, before the third respondent. On June 3, 1980, the third respondent, by separate orders dismissed A.P. Nos. 2/79 and 3/79 and refused to direct the registration of the documents in question holding that, since the value of the property comprised in the settlement deeds exceeds Rs. 50,000, they will attract the provisions of section 230A(1) of the Act and, therefore, the documents cannot be registered when the executant failed to produce the income-tax clearance certificate. Aggrieved by the order of the third respondent in A.P. No. 2/79, the petitioner has filed W.P. No. 4238/80 praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the second respondent dated September 12, 1979, as confirmed in the order of the third respondent dated June 3, 1980, made in A.P. No. 2/79 and direct the second respondent to register the settlement deed dated December 29, 1977, executed by the first respondent in favour of the petitioner. Similarly, W.P. No. 3228/80 has been filed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the second respondent dated September 12, 1977, as confirmed by the order dated June 3, 1980, made in A.P. No. 3/79 and to direct the second respondent to register the settlement deed dated January 7, 1978.

(2.) THE main contention of Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the provisions of section 230A of the Act have no application to the facts of the present case and for the registration of the documents in question inasmuch as the said documents relate only to the half share of the first respondent in the properties dealt with by the settlement deeds dated December 29, 1977, and January 7, 1978, and the value of the half share of the first respondent in the properties dealt with in each of the settlement deeds is less than Rs. 50,000. Learned senior counsel further contended that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have failed to see that it is only the value of the first respondent's right, title or interest in the property actually transferred under the settlement deeds that determined the applicability of section 230A and that merely because the properties transferred from part of a larger extent the entirely of it cannot be taken into account for the purpose of determining the applicability of section 230A, particularly when the first respondent is entitled only to a half share in the properties dealt with under the two settlement deeds in question.

(3.) IN R. Lokeswari v. State of Tamil Nadu [1992] 196 ITR 501 (Mad), S. Ramalingam J., while holding that, in the case of co-sharers selling under a single document, if the value of the share of each sharer is less than the limit prescribed under section 230A, though the value of the entire property exceeds the limit, an income-tax clearance certificate is not necessary for the registration of the sale deed, observed as follows (at page 504) :