Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition filed for declaring Section 2(14-A) inserted in the Stamp Act, 1899 by Stamp (Uttar Pradesh Second Amendment) Act, 2001 as unconstitutional, void, inoperative and ultra vires being repugnant to the provisions of two Central enactments, namely Transfer of Property Act as well as Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, Piyush Agrawal, J. while reiterating that the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act cannot be initiated for unregistered documents, held that oral gift under the Mohammedan Law which is reduced in writing on an unregistered document cannot be subjected to proceedings under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act.
The Court noted that it is not in dispute that the hiba/gift was made orally and the doner made the declaration of hiba, which was accepted as gift by the donee and the possession was delivered under the Muslim Personal Law to which there is no requirement of getting in writing.
The Court relied on Hafeeza Bibi v. Sk. Farid, (2011) 5 SCC 654 , wherein it was held that the three essentials of a gift under Mohammadan Law were the declaration of gift, acceptance and delivery of possession. If an oral gift is made which fulfils all three conditions, then it is a complete and irrevocable gift. Thus, reducing such oral gift in writing does not make it a formal gift deed.
Further, the Court said that Section 47-A of the Act can only be applicable when any instrument/document is presented for registration and not otherwise. If the authorities were of the view that hiba/gift deed was required for payment of stamp duty, then the proceedings under Section 33 of the Stamp Act should have been initiated and not under Section 47-A of the Act.
The Court said that neither party claimed that the hiba/ gift deed was presented for registration, therefore, proceedings under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act could not be initiated against the petitioners, as it was an unregistered document.
The Court reiterated that the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act cannot be initiated for unregistered documents. Thus, the Court held that the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Further, the Court directed that any amount deposited by the petitioners pursuant to the impugned orders, to be refunded to them within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
[Sahas Degree College v. State of U.P, 2024 SCC OnLine All 4199, decided on 08-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Petitioner: Ankit Kumar Rai,K.M. Misra
Counsel for Respondent: Chief Standing Cousel