Bombay HC: How to ascertain which perks given to employee is for his benefit and which perks are for benefit of his family for computation of compensation in motor accident?

 In the present case, the deceased was in service. As far as determination of income by way of salary is concerned, the law has been laid down by the Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava and others (MANU/SC/8201/2007 : AIR 2008 SC 845) (supra). In paragraph 10 (Para 9 of AIR) of its decision, the Apex Court held thus:-

10...If some facilities are being provided whereby the entire family stands to benefit, the same, in our opinion, must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis whereof the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicant is required to be determined.... {Para 16}

The ultimate conclusion is in paragraph 19 (Para 17 of AIR) of its judgment which reads thus:-

19 The amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contra distinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. We may, however, hasten to add that from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted.

17. Thus, the well settled position of law is that the amounts which were paid to the deceased by way of perks should be taken into consideration for computation of monthly income provided the perks were for the benefit of the family of the deceased. However, the allowances which were meant only for his personal benefit cannot be taken into consideration. The income-tax will have to be deducted from the income while arriving at the income for determining multiplicand. 

Due to absence of any evidence adduced by the first respondent to show that the Uniform Making Allowance, Uniform Washing Allowance, Transport Allowance, Conveyance, Medical Expenses were for the benefit of the family, the same cannot be taken into consideration for computing the loss of dependency. As far as the Academic Research Allowance is concerned, the same is payable as a perk apart from the basic salary. As suggested by the very name, it was not payable to the deceased by way of reimbursement of expenditure incurred by him. Hence, the benefit thereof was available not only to the deceased but also to his family members. Therefore, the said amount will have to be taken into consideration and will have to be added to the basic salary of Rs. 31,950/-. Thus, the gross salary comes to Rs. 34,950/- which can be rounded off to Rs. 35,000/-.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

First Appeal No. 1068 of 2012

Decided On: 31.08.2012

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vaishali Harish Devare and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Sadhana S. Jadhav, JJ.

Citation: 2014 ACJ 415 Bom, MANU/MH/2291/2012.

Print Page

Supreme court: Under which circumstances the party must pay stamp duty on agreement of sale treating it as Conveyance?

In the instant case, the agreement to sell executed between the Appellant and mother of the Respondent No. 1, specifically states that "this property is in your occupation on rental basis and it will not be part of the sale transaction. After completion of sale transaction, the possession of the said property will be given to you on the ownership basis. This makes it very clear that the suit property was occupied by the Appellant on a rental basis and it would not be a part of the sale transaction. Further, there was a clause, by which, timeline was given for execution of sale deed. Since the possession was admittedly given to the Appellant even before the date of agreement, implying acquisition of possessory rights protected Under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, the same requires payment of proper stamp duty. As indicated above, the agreement to sell includes a Clause stating that physical possession had already been handed over to the Appellant, regardless of the basis of such possession. This satisfies the requirement to treat the instrument as a 'conveyance' within the meaning of Explanation I to Article 25 of Schedule I of Bombay Stamp Act, with only the formality of executing the sale deed remaining. Pertinently, it is to be pointed out that the Appellant filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell against the Respondents; Respondent No. 1 filed a suit seeking eviction of the Appellant from the subject property; and both the suits are pending, which clearly establish the possession of the property by the Appellant. Therefore, the said document is liable for payment of stamp duty at the hands of the Appellant.  {Para 11}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 2549 of 2025.

Decided On: 14.02.2025

Ramesh Mishrimal Jain Vs. Avinash Vishwanath Patne and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.

Author: R. Mahadevan, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 213, MANU/SC/0218/2025.

Print Page

Delhi HC: Tests to determine when a deed can be treated as release deed or relinquishment deed

From a reading of the above judgments, the test to determine whether an instrument can be considered as a Release/Relinquishment Deed can be summarized as under:-

a. In determining whether the document is a release or Gift/Conveyance, the nomenclature used to describe the document or the language which the party may choose to employ in framing the document, is not a decisive factor. What is decisive is the actual character of the transaction intended by the executants;

b. Determination of the nature of the document is not a pure question of law;

c. Where a co-owner renounced his right in a property in favour of the other co-owner, mere use of word like 'consideration' and 'transfer' would not affect the true character of the transaction;

d. What is intended by a Release Deed is the relinquishment of the right of the co-owner;

e. Co-ownership need not be only through inheritance, but can also be through purchase;

f. Where the relinquishment of the right by the co-owner is only in favour of one of the co-owner and not against all, the document would be one of Gift/Conveyance and not of "release".

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

W.P. (C) 9193/2019 and 3560/2018

Decided On: 20.05.2020

Tripta Kaushik Vs. Sub Registrar VI-A, Delhi and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Navin Chawla, J.

Print Page

Whether document would be admissible on basis of recital made in it or on basis of pleadings raised by parties?

Smt. Rashmi Pandit, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State, however submitted that admissibility of the document would depend upon the recitals made in the document and not on basis of the pleadings made by one party and denied by the other.

Article 23 of Schedule-IA of the Indian Stamp Act refers to conveyance but with an added explanation it says that whenever there is an agreement to sell immovable property and there is a recital in the document that possession has been delivered to the proposed purchaser then the document would be deemed to be a conveyance and the stamp duty at the rate of 7.5% will have to be paid.

A document would be admissible on basis of the recitals made in the document and not on basis of the pleadings raised by the parties.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (INDORE BENCH)

W.P. No. 6464/2008

Decided On: 22.01.2010

 Mansingh  Vs. Rameshwar

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.S. Garg and Prakash Shrivastava, JJ.

Print Page

Whether it is necessary to pay stamp duty on consent decree?

 Whether, consent decree which transfers immovable property was "conveyance" within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Act before its amendment - Held, relying on State of Mah. and Ors. v. M.S. Builders (Private) Limited, definition of conveyance even before its amendment would include consent decree which fulfils all requisites of conferring right, title and interest in favour of vendees - Admittedly consent decree conveyed property - Therefore, such consent decree would be liable to stamp duty under Entry 25 of Schedule I of the Act."Persons shall be liable to pay stamp duty on consent decree if confers right, title and interest in favour of vendee."

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

W.P. No. 939 of 2007

Decided On: 22.08.2007

Peacebird Premises Co-op. Society Ltd. Vs. Collector of Stamps of Mumbai and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

F.I. Rebello and J.P. Devadhar, JJ.

Citation: 2008(1) MHLJ 865

Print Page

When subsequent deed of conveyance will prevail over earlier deed of conveyance?

In view of the discussions made above, on the one hand
possession of appellants/ defendants over the suit property stood
confirmed whereas Gajanand Agarwalla and subsequent
purchasers i.e. Gurmukh Singh and plaintiffs have never come in
possession over the suit property and that is also apparent from
the evidence of P.W.-4. Under such circumstances, the appellants
are entitled for the protection contained under Section 53A of the
Transfer of Property Act and they cannot be evicted therefrom. 
The appellants have also taken a plea of constructive notice
as given under Explanation – II of Section 3 of the Transfer of
Property Act. There should not be straight jacket formula that the
Deed of Conveyance which were earlier in time, shall prevail over
the Deed of Conveyance executed later. The Court has to look into
the facts and evidence available on record to decide as to who had
acquired a better title if two Title Deeds are available. The Courts
below have decided that the Sale Deed dated 11.10.1984 is later
in time and hence that will not prevail against the Sale Deed
executed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs
i.e. 12.07.1984. The documents and evidence available on record
indicates that Sitaram Agarwalla and his brothers, Gajanand
Agarwalla Gurmukh Singh and even the plaintiffs are resident of
same vicinity and they all are having their residence nearby to the
disputed property. They have not inquired from the defendants at
any point of time before the transaction made in their favour from
the defendants as to under what capacity or authority they are
occupying the suit premises.
17. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs in this regard has relied
upon the Judgment reported in AIR 1987 Patna, Page-5 but the
facts in the case at hand are different. The appellants were not
occupying smaller portion of the property rather they were in
occupation and possession of Plot No. 151. Sitaram Agarwalla and
his three brothers had executed single Sale Deed pertaining to
Plot Nos. 151, 152 and 153 in favour of Gajanand Agarwalla. All
the three plots were having their different identity which also
reveal from the fact that Plot No. 153 was recorded in the name of
Purni Devi and, therefore, Gajanand Agarwalla got the Sale Deed
executed by Purni Devi in his favour pertaining to Plot No. 153.
Since the plaintiffs did not make enquiry about the authority
under which the appellants were occupying their possession over
the suit property, they cannot be considered bonafide purchaser.
For reference, Explanation-II of Section 3 of the Transfer of
Property Act is being given hereunder:-30 S.A. No. 61 of 2004
“Explanation – III. – A person shall be deemed to have
had notice of any fact if his agent acquires notice
thereof whilst acting on his behalf in the course of
business to which that fact is material:
Provided that, if the agent fraudulently conceals the
fact, the principal shall not be charged with notice
thereof as against any person who was a party to or
otherwise cognizant of the fraud.”
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
SECOND APPEAL NO. 61 of 2004

Smt. Gita Devi
V 
Mrs. Sobha Agarwalla,

Print Page

When registered sale deed should not be treated as nominal?

The deed of sale being a registered one and apparently containing stipulations of transfer of right, title and interest by the vendor in favour of the vendee, the onus of proof was upon the defendant to show that the said deed was, in fact, not executed or otherwise does not reflect the true nature of transaction.

A document, as is well known, must be construed in its entirety. Reading the said in its entirety, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that it was a deed of sale. It satisfies all the requirements of a conveyance of sale as envisaged under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.

In Bishwanath Prasad Singh v. Rajendra Prasad& Anr. [(2006) 4 SCC 432], this Court held :

"16. A deed as is well known must be construed having regard to the language used therein. We have noticed hereinbefore that by reason of the said deed of sale, the right, title and interest of the respondents herein was conveyed absolutely in favour of the appellant. The sale deed does not recite any other transaction of advance of any sum by the appellant to the respondents which was entered into by and between the parties. In fact, the recitals made in the sale deed categorically show that the respondents expressed their intention to convey the property to the appellant herein as they had incurred debts by taking loans from various other creditors.

 It will bear repetition to state that with a view to ascertain the nature of a transaction the document has to be read as a whole. A sentence used or a term used may not be determinative of the real nature of transaction."
 The document in question was not only a registered one but also the title deeds in respect of the properties have also been handed over. Symbolical possession if not actual physical possession, thus, must be held to have been handed over. It was acted upon. Appellants started paying rent in respect of the said property. No objection thereto has been raised by the respondent.
If the sum of Rs.50,000/- was the amount of loan wherefor the deed of sale was executed by way of security, having regard to his admission that the firm is an income-tax payee and maintains books of account in regular course of business, failure on his part to produce any documentary evidence merited drawing of an adverse inference.
Right of possession over a property is a facet of title. As soon as a deed of sale is registered, the title passes to the vendee. The vendor, in terms of the stipulations made in the deed of sale, is bound to deliver possession of the property sold. If he does not do so, he makes him liable for damages. 
If the appellant was able to prove that the deed of sale was duly executed and it was neither a sham transaction nor represented a transaction of different character, a suit for recovery of possession was maintainable. A heavy onus lay on the respondent to show that apparent state of affairs was not the real state of affairs.
A heavy burden of proof lay upon the defendant to show that the transaction was a sham one. It was not a case where the parties did not intend to enter into any transaction at all. Admittedly, a transaction had taken place. Only the nature of transaction was in issue. A distinction must be borne in mind in regard to the nominal nature of a transaction which is no transaction in the eye of law at all and the nature and character of a transaction as reflected in a deed of conveyance. The construction of the deed clearly shows that it was a deed of sale. The stipulation with regard to payment of compensation in the event appellants are dispossessed was by way of an indemnity and did not affect the real nature of transaction.
Reportable

Supreme Court of India

Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain & Ors vs Ramakant Eknath Jajoo on 23 March, 2009

Bench: S.B. Sinha, Mukundakam Sharma

Citation:2009(5)MHLJ 597

Print Page

Whether Family arrangement by which party take share in property amounts to conveyance of property?

A family arrangement, on the contrary, is a 
transaction between members of the same family for the benefit 
of the family so as to preserve the family property, the peace 
and   security   of   the   family,   avoidance   of   family   dispute   and 
litigation and also for saving the honour of the family. Such an 
arrangement   is   based   on   the   assumption   that   there   was   an 

antecedent title in the parties and the agreement acknowledges 
and defines what that title is. It is for this reason that a family 
arrangement by which each party takes a share in the property 
has been held as not amounting to a "conveyance of property" 
from a person who has title to it to a person who has no title. ”
Thus,   the   Apex   Court   has   held   that   the   family 
arrangement, by which party takes share in the property, will 
not amount to a conveyance of the property.
There is no dispute that the suit house was allotted to the 
share  of   present   petitioner   and   his   name   is   mutated   in   relevant 
revenue record on 24.7.1986.  Thus, n view of the dictum in the case 
of  Sk.Sattar   Sk.Mohd.   Choudhari  by   the   Apex   Court,   the   lower 
appellate   court   ought   to   have   seen   that   the   facts   in   the   case   of 
N.N.Engineer are clearly distinguishable and the ratio laid down by 
the Apex Court in said case is not applicable to the case I hand. 
Since the landlord has successfully pointed out that the 

tenant was in arrears of rent for more than six months, he was not 
entitled for the protection, and therefore, the lower appellate court, in 
my view, has committed a mistake in upsetting the well  reasoned 
judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court.{21,22}


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD
 WRIT PETITION NO. 1597 OF 2001
     Subhash Narsopant Saundankar,

VERSUS
Chandrakant Babanrao Salunke,

CORAM  :  V.M.DESHPANDE, J.
                DATED   :  8   January, 2015
Citation;AIR 2015(NOC)765 BOM

Print Page

When is stamp duty as a conveyance to be paid on agreement of sale?

 Undoubtedly, Explanation (1) to Article 25 of the Schedule I of the said Act provides that when an agreement to sale an immovable property is accompanied with the delivery of possession of the immovable property, which is the subject-matter of the agreement, would be deemed to be a conveyance of the property and, therefore, would require the payment of the stamp duty accordingly. In other words, even if an instrument is drawn with the nomenclature as agreement for sale but once it discloses delivery of possession of immovable property to the purchaser thereunder, the transaction would partake the nature of conveyance and would be deemed to be a deed of sale and, therefore, would warrant stamp duty payable on a deed of sale in relation to such property.

Bombay High Court

Sanman Trade Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 23 August, 2004

Equivalent citations: AIR 2005 Bom 94, 2005 (1) BomCR 181, 2005 (1) MhLj 1037

Author: Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.

Print Page

Whether burden of proof is on party in whose favour document is executed?

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 101 - Burden of proof - Suit for declaration and possession - Plea of valid purchase of suit property by defendants - Admittedly suit property owned by the husband of plaintiff - Burden of proof - Burden presumes to be discharged by the plaintiff - Defendant relied upon deed of conveyance but did not produce the same - Burden of proof cast upon the party in whose favour the document is executed - Onus shifted upon defendants to prove the valid purchase by execution of conveyance.

Bombay High Court

Ravindra Lalbachan Tiwari And ... vs Smt. Nirmaladevi Vijaynarayan ... on 23 December, 1996

Equivalent citations: 1997 (4) BomCR 75

Print Page