Case: Ramesh Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Citation: LPA No. 346 of 2020 | Decided on 8 October 2025
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal & Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ.
Court: Delhi High Court
In a ruling that will resonate across family property transactions and inheritance settlements, the Delhi High Court has held that a relinquishment deed executed by sisters in favour of their brother — another co-owner — cannot be treated as a gift under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
Such a deed, when executed among legal heirs recognising their inherited shares, is a family settlement, not a gratuitous transfer. The judgment in Ramesh Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) reaffirms that succession and family harmony must not be taxed as gifts.
This decision addresses a recurring grievance in property transactions: the mechanical treatment of family relinquishments as gifts by stamp authorities, resulting in heavy, unwarranted stamp duty and penalties.
Background: The Property and the Dispute
The appellant, Ramesh Sharma, along with his five sisters, inherited their parents’ immovable property as Class-I legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Their late father had executed a Will bequeathing a 50% share in the property to his son.
To give full effect to the Will, all five sisters executed Relinquishment Deeds (RDs) in favour of their brother, voluntarily and without any monetary consideration.
However, the Sub-Registrar impounded these deeds and referred them to the Collector of Stamps, classifying them as gift deeds under Article 23 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act, 1899, alleging deficient stamp duty.
The SDM imposed ₹6.60 lakh as duty and ₹1 lakh as penalty. The appellant paid under protest, challenged the order, and ultimately appealed before the Division Bench after the Single Judge upheld the impounding.
The Legal Question Before the Court
Whether the relinquishment of rights by sisters (co-owners) in favour of their brother (another co-owner) amounts to a gift under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, attracting ad valorem stamp duty on market value?
The Court’s Analysis and Findings
Relinquishment Is Not Transfer — It Perfects Title
The Court clarified that a relinquishment deed merely enlarges the share of an existing co-owner; it does not create new ownership.
“A release deed between co-owners has equal force as between coparceners. It feeds title but does not transfer it.”
The sisters, being co-owners by inheritance, had pre-existing ownership rights. Their RDs simply acknowledged and consolidated these rights in favour of their brother — not by way of gift, but as a recognition of succession.
No Monetary Consideration Does Not Mean “Gift”
Authorities often equate “no consideration” with “gift.” The Court firmly rejected this approach:
-
In family contexts, absence of monetary consideration is natural and expected, not indicative of a gift.
-
Such transactions are acts of family adjustment and affection, not gratuitous transfers.
Substance Over Nomenclature
The nomenclature of a document — whether titled “relinquishment” or “gift” — is not determinative of its legal nature under the Stamp Act.
“The Stamp Act facilitates revenue collection, but the true character of the document is derived from its intent and substance, not its title.”
Bequest and Family Settlement Context
The Court noted that:
-
The father’s Will had already vested ownership to the extent of 50% in the son.
-
The sisters’ deeds were acknowledgments of the bequest, not independent transfers.
-
Hence, all RDs formed part of a single family settlement transaction.
The Judgment
The Division Bench held:
- The RDs cannot be treated as gift deeds under the Stamp Act.
- The impounding and demand of duty/penalty were erroneous.
- The transaction was a Family Settlement, not a gift.
“Relinquishment of rights by the sisters, who were co-owners, in favour of their brother, another co-owner, cannot be said to be a gift for the purposes of the Stamp Act.”
— Delhi High Court
Supporting Judicial Precedents
| Case | Citation | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Kale & Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation | (1976) 3 SCC 119 | Family settlements are not transfers or gifts; they promote peace. |
| CIT v. A.L. Ramanathan | (2000) 245 ITR 494 (Mad) | Relinquishment among family members not taxable as transfer. |
| Chief Controlling Revenue Authority v. Sudha Patil | (1998) 2 SCC 295 | Family arrangements exempt from ad valorem duty. |
| N. Krishnamoorthy v. Ayyasamy | (2022) 9 SCC 377 | Relinquishment perfects title of co-owner; no new transfer. |
Professional Implications and Compliance Solutions
This judgment is not merely interpretative — it provides practical clarity for real estate transactions, succession planning, and registration procedures.
A. Drafting Best Practices
When advising clients on intra-family transfers:
-
Use the term “Relinquishment Deed”, not “Gift Deed.”
-
Begin with succession context: recite how ownership devolved by inheritance or Will.
-
Explicitly state that it is without consideration and part of a family settlement.
-
Include declaration:
“This deed records recognition of pre-existing rights and shall not be treated as a conveyance or gift.”
Attach supporting papers:
-
Copy of Will or succession certificate.
-
Death certificate of predecessor.
-
Legal heir affidavit or NOC from all heirs.
B. Stamp Duty Planning and Adjudication
-
Applicable Duty:
Relinquishment between family co-heirs attracts only nominal duty, as per Delhi Stamp (Amendment) Rules, 2001, or respective state amendments. -
Avoid Misclassification:
If the Sub-Registrar insists on treating it as a gift:-
File adjudication under Section 31 of the Stamp Act to get written clarification on duty.
-
Attach certified copy of this Delhi HC judgment for reference.
-
-
If Duty Already Paid:
Pay under protest and file refund/review application within limitation period, citing this ruling.
C. Tax and FEMA Dimensions
-
Income Tax: Relinquishment among co-heirs does not trigger capital gains, since it is not a “transfer” under Section 47(ii) of the IT Act.
-
Gift Tax (Section 56(2)(x)): Not applicable between “relatives”, which includes siblings.
-
FEMA: No approval required for resident-to-resident relinquishment among family members.
D. Litigation Prevention Framework
| Risk | Root Cause | Professional Remedy |
|---|---|---|
| Stamp duty treated as “gift” | Registrar misclassification | Use “family settlement” recital; cite Ramesh Sharma judgment |
| Title disputes by heirs | Unregistered or ambiguous deed | Register all RDs with clear succession clause |
| Income-tax scrutiny | Treated as “transfer” | Attach legal opinion referencing Section 47(ii) |
| Penalty exposure | Unclear document intent | Seek adjudication under Section 31 prior to execution |
Broader Legal and Social Perspective
This ruling reaffirms the Indian doctrine of family settlement, a judicially evolved principle rooted in preserving harmony rather than revenue.
The Court’s approach restores balance between fiscal governance and familial justice — recognising that inheritance and affection cannot be monetised through stamp duty.
As Justice Kshetarpal’s bench observed, the purpose of the Stamp Act is revenue collection, but it cannot defeat the legitimacy of family arrangements rooted in succession.
Drafting Reference: Model Clause
“This Relinquishment Deed is executed voluntarily among the Class-I heirs of Late [Name], out of natural love and affection, without monetary consideration, and solely to record the family arrangement recognising the pre-existing rights of the parties under inheritance and Will. The parties declare that this deed does not constitute a gift, transfer, or conveyance under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.”
Key Takeaways for Professionals
| Scenario | Nature | Stamp Duty | Tax Implication | Legal Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Co-heirs releasing inherited share | Family settlement (Relinquishment) | Nominal duty | No tax on transfer | Valid; Not a gift |
| Transfer to non-heir relative | Gift | Ad valorem duty | Exempt u/s 56(2)(x) if relative | Treated as gift |
| Transfer to unrelated person | Conveyance | Ad valorem duty | Taxable transfer | Full duty payable |
| Relinquishment post Will bequest | Family acknowledgment | Nominal duty | No capital gain | Protected |
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s judgment in Ramesh Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) has provided a measured, just, and pragmatic interpretation of the Stamp Act in the context of family property.
By ruling that relinquishment of inherited property rights is not a gift, the Court safeguards the intent behind family settlements — an act of faith, not of fiscal transaction.
This ruling should guide:
-
Registrars and Stamp Authorities to interpret documents by their substance, not form,
-
Tax practitioners to distinguish succession acknowledgments from transfers, and
-
Families to execute well-drafted, compliant deeds that honour both law and lineage.
