The High Court · 2025

Gounsel for the Petitioners: Mr. BANKATLAL MANDHANI, Advocate counsel for the Respondents: Mr. M N NARASIMHA REDDY, Advocate The Gourt made the following: ORDER J LNA, J CRP.No.2l 3 of 2020 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.213 of 2020 ORDER This Revision is directed against the order dated 05.Q8.2019 in OS.No.572 of 2OlO passed by the I Additional Senior Ciyil Judge, Warangal, whereby and whereunder the trial Court held that the document dated 13.04.1985 cannot be received in evidence for want of stamp duty and registration.

2. Heard Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel for petitioners, and Sri M.N.Narasimha Reddy, leamed counsel for respondents.

3. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs ana ihe reppondents herein are the defendants in the suit.

4. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners filed the suit-QS.No.572 of 2010 seeking the following reliefs:- (i) to declare that the plaintiffs are entitled to entry showiryg them os pattodars in possession of Acs.2.00 guntas of land includlng well in 5y.No.327, 331, 332, 335 and 336 of Kadipitanda Village deleting the entry showing the defendant Nos.l and 2 as pattadar ofiatd land and consequently, to direct the Tahsildar, Hanamkonda to issue patta pass book and title deed pass book in favour of plaintiff in respect of the land in Survey Nos.327, 331, 332, 335 and 336 of Kazipet Jagir Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal D istrict,' t' ,/ \ 4 cRP.No.2t 3 :fir!, (it) To poss a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and workmen from in any manner interfering with the suit schedule property; and (iii)To award costs of the suit.

4.1. The petitioners are claiming the suit schedule property basing on document dated 13.04.1995 executed by their mother tr:rming the same as 'will deed'. During the course of trial, the potitioners sought to mark the said document, however, the trial court, on examination of the said document, has come to a conclusion that, though document is named as 'will,, on reading of recitals of the document, the same is a Gift deed, and as such, the same requires requisite stamp duty as well as registration and in absence of the same, the said document cannot be received in evid"rr"". Aggrieved by the said order, the present Revision petition is filed.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the document drrted 13.04.1985 was executed by the mother of petitioners, whereby she has bequeathed the suit schedule property in favour of petitioners arLd specifically mentioned that the same is Will deed. He further submitted that the said document was executed in the presence of qrrr::tnesses and that the document was in fact a .will deed and not a / 5 LNA, J CRP.No.2l 3 of 2020 'Gift deed', as wrongly interpreted and construed by the trial Court. He funher submitted that the trial Court instead of receiving the document in evidence, at threshold itself, it has effoneously gone into the nature of document which is per se impermissible. F{e further submitted that the document was executed recording past transaction and the same is not a Gift deed, therefore, there was no requirement of payment of stamp duty or registration. Learned counsel, thus, contended that all these aspects were not properly appreciatpd by the trial Court and thus, came to an erroneous conclusion and {herefore, - the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for pBtitioners relied upon the following judgments: (l) Smt Kamala Devi and another Vs. Bachulal Gupta a4d othersl (ii)Gandevalla Jayaram Reddy Vs. Mokkala Padmaruthamma and othersz (iit) Veeramreddy Chandra Rao (declarant) Vs. State of . Authorised Ofricer, Land Reforms Tribunal, Kakinada3 I 'AIR tgsz sc 434 2 RrR zooz AP 7s (FB) 'zooz(2) AnwR 69 (AP) -\ t ',:+B}ur*.: l- 6 LNA, J CRP.No.2l3 of 2020

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents subrnitted that it is sottled principle of law that nature of a document has to be determined as per the recitals and whole reading of the document, and not, by its nomenclature and hence, though the document dated L3.04.1985 is styled as will, however, the contents of the document clearly establish that rights in the immovable properties have been created and possession has been also delivered to the petitioners, therefore, the said document has to be necessarily construed as Gift deed and consequently, since the value of the properties covered tlrereunder was more than Rs.100/-, the same. requires registration arrd also payment of requisite stamp duty, as was rightty observed by ttre trial court. A reading of document dated 13.04.1985 would cJearly show that the same is in the form of Gift deed, whereby and w'hereunder rights have been created in favour of the petitioners and p,:ssession was also delivered and hence, the trial Court has rightly came to a conclusion that the same requires stamp duty and re'gistration. He further submitted that the properties were given to fte petitioners as 'pasupu kumkuma' and that, it is merely regarding a past transaction, as contended by learned counsel for petitioners is incorrect, which is evident from the recitals of subject document. II :. , .-.':, 7 LNA, J CRP.No.2l3 of 2020

7.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners failed to point out any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order and therefore, this Revision is devoid of merits and is liahle to be

7.2. Leamed counsel for respondents further submitted that the judgments relied upon by leamed counsel for petitioners have no application to the facts of the present case and finally, prayed to dismiss the Revision.

8. The issue that requires to be considered in this Revision is whether the trial Court was coffect in holding that the document dated 13.04.1985 is a Gift deed and as such, the same requires registration and payment of stamp duty.

9. The facts and circumstances of the cases in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioners are entirely distinct from the present case and therefore, the said judgment$ are not applicable to the present case.

10. For adjudication of the said issue, it is relevant to refer to and rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble supreme court in Mathai \ \ l 7l I I t; I I It' I 8 LNA, J CRP.No.2l3 of 2020 Siamuel Vs, Eapen Eapena, wherein a clear line of distinction is drawn and the requirements for both a Will and a Gift are outlined. For better appreciation, the requirements of a Will and a Gift, as enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, are extracted as hereunder:- '\4/e ntay point out that in the case of a wtll, the crucial circumstance is the existence of a provision d.isposing of or distributing the property of the testator to take effect on his death. On the other hand, in case of a Sft, the proviston becomes operative immediately and a transfer in praesentt is intended and comes into ffict. A will is, therefore, revocable because no interest ts intended to pass durtng the ltfetime of the owner of the property. In the case of gift, it comes into operatton tmmediately. The nomenclature given by the parttes to the transaction tn questictn, as we have already tndicated, is not decisive. A will need not be necessarily registered. The mere registration of "will" will not render the document a settlement. In other words, the real and the only reliable test for the purpose of finding out whether the document constitutes a wtll or a gft is to find out as to what exactly is the dtsposition which the document has made, whether it has transferred any interest in praesentt infavour of the settlees or it intended to transfer interest in favour of the settlees only on the death of the settlers. " \\\ o lzotz;13 scc Bo / 9 LNA, J CRP.NI.2l3 of 2020

11. In addition to the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court, it is also well settled that the properfy disposod of or distributed by the testator under a Will would come into opsration or take effect on the death of the testator. [n other words, a Xrill being prone to be revoked at any time during the life time of the testator, the same would not come into effect during the life time of the testator. L2. On the other hand, in case of Gift, the provision disposing of or distributing the property of the executor comes into effect immediately.

13. In the light of the aforesaid judgment of thelHon'ble Slrpreme Court in Mathai Samuel's case (cited supra) and also the settled principle of law, this court has scrutinized the document dated 13.04.1985 vis-i-vis the specific case of the petitioner$ that the said document is a will deed executed by their mother in their favour.

14. A reading of recitals of the said document dated 13104.1985 goes to show that the executor of the said document has transferred the property covered under the said document along with possession qhereof with immediate effect to her daughters. Further, the gxecutant , / / " .i:.-.sEitE*il l i ! I I l0 LNA, J CRP.No.2t3 of 2020 ()f the said document also mentioned that the Government cess shall tre paid by her daughters and also gave right to her daughters to get their narnes mutated in Goverrment records.

15. Though, the nomenclature of the document dated r3.04.19g5 ir; shown as 'will', the contents thereof, therefore, necessarily do not fall under the requirements outlined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in lulathai samuel's case (cited supra) to treat the same as a wi[. 16. Further, it is apt to note that in the case on hand, under the document, dated 13.04.t985, the property is disposed of/distributed/ fi'ansferred b), the executor in favour of her daughters along with possession. Hence, the said document is said to have come into operation immediately, which implies that the said document is in the nature of 'Gift deed'.

17. For the foregoing reasons and in the light of the judgment of Hion'ble Supreme court in Mathai Samuet's case (cited supra), this Court holds that the trial Court has rightly concluded that the dccument dated 13.04.1985 is a 'Gift deed' and hence, the same n,:eds to be registered and requisite stamp duty also needs to be paid.

18. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is dismissed. *ii / \ .\ LNA, J CRP.No.2l 3 of 2020

19. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No SD/. P.PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY/ one FairGppy to the Hon'bre sRI JUSTTCE LAxMr NARAYANA ALTSHETTY (For His / Her Lordship kind perusal) I To, 1 2 3 4 5 o 7 The I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Warangal, One CC to Mr. BANKATLAL MANDHANI, Advocate [OpUC] One CC to Mr. M N NARASIMHA REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl 11 LR Copies fhe under secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi Jhg. se,g.rgtary_Tglangana Advocates Association Library, High court for the state of relangana, High court Buildings at Hyderiuao.- Two CD Copies RC/PSL I : .'. $1 : '.$/ ,;ff+dJffi HIGH CCIURT DATED: 28/08 12025 ) ! o o ( TTIE S tn c ? 3 JAr 2025 t- d1 'l'r'!'k ORDER CRP.N o.1213 of 2020 Accordingly, this Revision petition is Dismissed.