Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. The petitioners, who are partners of Shivshakti Developers executed "Rectification Deeds" on 30.3.2013 rectifying the mistake committed while executing the Conveyance on 18.5.2012 that though the properties were jointly purchased by the partners of Shivshakti Developers, the Sale Deeds were executed in the name of Shivshakti Developers. The said Rectification Deeds were executed by the present petitioners and the original owner/s of each property with regard to each transaction. The Rectification Deeds were submitted to the authority to correct / rectify the mistake in the Conveyance Deeds.

13. Mr. Hriday Buch, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners would submit that Shivshakti Developers is a Partnership Firm and a Partnership Deed was executed on 22.8.2011. The Partnership Deed was executed amongst three persons, namely, Vijay Zinabhai Prajapati, Jitendra Shantilal Motani and Bhavik Dolatrai Mehta (petitioners herein). By taking me through the Sale Deeds executed on 18.5.2012, he would submit that the names of above referred three partners are shown as purchasers of the property. However, the same has been shown as if the property is being purchased by Shivshakti Developers. The vendor in each petitions is common i.e. Smitaben whereas joint vendors for each property are her family members. The stamp duty which is required to be affixed on the said conveyance was properly applied and at no point of time, the authority raised any dispute with regard to the value of the property. Accordingly, the document was registered with the concerned Authority. He would further submit that when the present petitioners who had jointly purchased the property found that a mistake has been committed by them by referring the purchaser i.e. Shivshakti Developers, they executed Rectification Deeds with the same vendors with regard to each property on 30.3.2013 and the property was not intended to be purchased by Shivshakti Developers but the same was intended to be jointly purchased by the present petitioners. By taking me through the Rectification Deeds dated 30.3.2013, he would submit that a request was made to delete the name of the 'partnership firm' as a vendee and the same would be replaced by showing the names of the present petitioners. He would further submit that neither the size of the property is changed nor there is change of hands, if the Rectification Deed is perused. Since it was a rectification deed, stamp of Rs.100/- was applied on the same.

14. He would further submit that Rectification Deed cannot be treated as a Conveyance as defined under Section 2 (g) of the Stamp Act since the immovable property is not transferred to / or vested in any other person than the present petitioners as well as the said Rectification Deed could be treated as inter-vivos transfer.

Mr. Buch would further submit that only because the name of the purchaser i.e. Partnership Firm is changed in the name of the original partners, the same cannot be treated as transfer of property as defined under the Transfer of Property Act. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prasad Technology Park (P) Limited v. Sub-Registrar and others, (2006) 1 SCC 473. He would further submit that even the Rectification Deed cannot be treated as an instrument as defined under Section 2 (l) of the Stamp Act since by executing the said Deed, neither any right or liability is created, transferred, extended, extinguished etc.

19. He would further submit that new rights have been created in favour of the present petitioners without paying any stamp by executing a document by giving nomenclature of 'Rectification Deed'. By taking me through the Sale Deed, he would submit that wherever there is a reference of purchaser, the name has been shown as Shivshakti Developers. The petitioners have purchased the property in the capacity of the partners in the said Sale Deed. Therefore, the Rectification Deed cannot be treated as if some minor mistakes are to be corrected. He would submit that the decision relied upon by Mr. Buch in the case of Prasad Technology Park (P) Limited (Supra) is not applicable in the facts of the present case. He would submit that in the said case, only the name of the Company was changed whereas in the present case, the entire entity is changed. He would submit that in the decision in the case of M. S. Beena W/o M. K. Rajeendran (Supra), only the change in the document was with regard to some right and not with regard to the title of the property. He, therefore, would submit that the petitions be dismissed.