Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Gandevalla Jayaram Reddy vs Mokkala Padmavathamma And Others on 14 August, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(5)ALD402, 2001(5)ALT130, AIR 2002 ANDHRA PRADESH 75, 2002 A I H C 812, (2002) 2 CURLJ(CCR) 478, (2002) 4 CURCC 339, (2002) 2 JCR 569 (AP), (2001) 5 ANDH LT 130, (2001) 4 ICC 889, (2001) 5 ANDHLD 402
Author: S.B. Sinha
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Goda Raghuram
ORDER S.B. Sinha, C.J.
1. Whether the transfer of immovable property by way of Pasupu Kumkuma (gift of immovable property to a daughter at the time of marriage) requires registration in terms of the provisions of Section 17 of the Registration Act or not is the question involved in this application.
2. In Bhubaneswar Naik Santoshrai v. The Special Tahsildar, Land Reforms, Tekkali, , a Division Bench of this Court held that having regard to the provisions of Section 3 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act which includes the reasonable expenses of marriage of the daughter and further having regard to the nature of the transaction by way of pasupu kumkuma which is both involuntary as well as for consideration, such transaction would not attract the provisions of Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act and thus, it is not compulsorily registerable in terms of Section 123 thereof. Another learned single Judge of this Court in P. Buchi Reddy v. Anantula Sudhakar, , followed the decision in Bhubaneswar Naik Santoshrai (supra).
3. In view of the aforementioned decisions, the learned trial Judge held that whatever property is given to a daughter or sister towards her marriage irrespective of the fact as to whether the same is done at the time of or at any time after marriage, the same will fall under the description of pasupu kumkuma and thus, neither any stamp duty is required to be paid nor the document is liable to be registered.
4. It is not in dispute that a document reduced to writing and involving transfer of immovable property valued at more than Rs. one hundred is compulsorily registerable. The purported transaction was made by way of a letter dated 30-5-1956 executed by defendants 1 and 3 and father of defendants 8 to 11, and no stamp duty was paid.
5. Section 17(1) of the Registration Act reads thus:
17. Documents of which registration is compulsory :--(1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which and if they have been executed on or after the date on which Act No.XVl of 1863 or the Indian Registration Act, 1866 or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes into force, namely:
(a)
(b) other non testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property;
6. The decision in Bhubaneswar Naik Santoshrai (supra) in our opinion does not lay down the correct law. The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act obligates a parent to maintain a married daughter in certain circumstances, but that would not mean that any transaction of immovable property as a result whereof, the right, title and interest is passed on, be she a daughter or sister at the time of her marriage or otherwise, would not be compulsorily registerable.
7. The learned Judges committed a manifest error in holding that the daughters have a share in the property. The daughters save and except under a customary or statutory right cannot have any share in a joint family property. Even assuming that she has such right, she can only claim partition, but it is beyond any cavil of doubt that if a transaction is effected in writing, the same would require registration. The Division Bench, in our opinion, further committed a manifest error in holding that the 'pasupu kumkuma' being both involuntary as well as for consideration, the same would not be a gift within the meaning of Section 122 of the Transfer of property Act. Evidently such a transaction would create right in immovable property in one and the right of the owner thereof shall be extinguished and thus the same would attract the provisions of Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. No authority has been cited by the learned Division Bench in support of their opinion that pasupu kumkuma could very well be done orally.
8. Furthermore, the learned Judges proceeded on a wrong premise in holding that the pasupu kumkuma is not a gift. 'Pasupu Kukuma' as defined in P. Ramanatha Iyer's Law Lexicon means a gift, a settlement or assignment of land to a daughter. Inevitably therefore, such a gift of immovable property, the consideration whereof would be love and affection could come within the meaning of Section 123 thereof.
9. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Bhubaneswar Naik Santoshrai (supra) does not lay down the correct law and it is overruled accordingly.
10. Let the matter be posted before appropriate Bench for hearing on the merit.