Mr. Amar Preet Singh vs Collector Of Stamp (South) And Anr.

$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: October 27 , 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010110982024
+ W.P.(C) 3301/2024 & CM APPL. 13601/2024, CM APPL.
13603/2024, CM APPL. 18531/2024
MR. AMAR PREET SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Tamali Wad, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Varyam
Pandey, Ms. Siya Pandita,
Advocates.
versus
COLLECTOR OF STAMP (SOUTH)
AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Lalltaksh Joshi and
Mr.Keshav Poonia, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India assailing order dated 08.01.2024 whereby the
review petition of the petitioner against order dated 03.09.2015 of the
Court of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (‘ CCRA ’) was
dismissed.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner
died intestate and pursuant to the same his share in the property
bearing No. C-150, Greater Kailash, New Delhi-110048 devolved
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3301/2024 Page 1 of 6
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.10.2026
20:15:54

upon his four children, including the petitioner. It is contended that, in
furtherance of their father’s wishes, petitioner’s two sisters executed a
Relinquishment Deed dated 29.11.2012 in his favour, followed by a
similar deed executed by his brother on 02.01.2013, which was duly
registered.
3. The Sub-Registrar impounded the deed dated 29.11.2012
executed by his sisters under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act,
treating it as a Gift Deed. The learned Collector vide order dated
03.03.2014 observed that the relinquishment deed had been executed
in favour of only one brother leaving out the second brother and
further observed that the petitioner’s brother having also subsequently
relinquished his share in favour of the petitioner would not affect the
previous transaction. Thus, the learned Collector treated the said deed
as a Gift Deed, imposed stamp duty of ₹18,26,514 and a penalty of
₹50,50,000, and directed the petitioner to deposit a total sum of
₹68,26,514.
4. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the learned
CCRA, however, the same was rejected vide order dated 03.09.2015.
The petitioner also filed a revision petition against the order dated
03.09.2015, however the same was also dismissed vide the impugned
order.
5. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed.
6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits
relinquishment deed dated 29.11.2012, executed by the petitioner’s
two sisters in his favour has been erroneously considered as a Gift
Deed, on the ground that all the legal heirs had not relinquished their
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3301/2024 Page 2 of 6
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.10.2026
20:15:54

respective shares simultaneously. She submits that the petitioner’s
brother had subsequently executed a Relinquishment Deed dated
02.01.2013 in the petitioner’s favour, which was duly registered and
was also brought to the notice of the authorities. She submits that the
relinquishment of shares by all three siblings in favour of the
petitioner was in furtherance of their father’s wishes and that the deed
executed by the sisters could not have been treated as a Gift Deed
merely because the brother had executed a separate deed
subsequently.
7. Per Contra , the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently
opposes the present petition. He submits that by way of the
relinquishment deed dated 29.11.2012, two sisters of the petitioner
specifically relinquished their shares in favour of the petitioner and
excluded their other brother. He submits that relinquishment can be
made only in favour of all the heirs and not one specific heir and thus,
the deed dated 29.11.2012 would amount to a gift deed.
8. From a bare perusal of the two relinquishment deeds, it is
evident that the recitals in all the deeds are identical and styled as
release deeds. In the said documents, the siblings of the petitioner
have separately agreed to relinquish their rights in the subject property
in favour of the petitioner. It is also not disputed that the petitioner and
his siblings were co-sharers in the property after the demise of their
father.
9. In the opinion of this Court, both the relinquishment deeds
whereby the siblings of the petitioner have released their share in
favour of the petitioner form part of a single transaction. Upon a
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3301/2024 Page 3 of 6
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.10.2026
20:15:54

holistic view of the said transaction, it is apparent that all the co-
sharers in the subject property have ultimately relinquished their
shares in favour of the petitioner. The said documents have been
executed between family members without any economic
consideration.
10. It is also pertinent to note that a Division Bench of this Court in
somewhat similar circumstances in the case of Anita Kumar v. Ajay
Kumar Since Deceased through LRs & Ors . : FAO(OS) 130/2024 ,
while examining the distinction between a relinquishment deed and a
gift deed, held that a relinquishment deed cannot be treated as a gift
deed merely because the relinquishment is in favour of one co-sharer
to the exclusion of the others. The material consideration is whether
the person in whose favour the relinquishment is made already
possesses a title in the property, which is enlarged by the
relinquishment, or whether the instrument seeks to transfer title to a
person who had no pre-existing interest therein.
“26. Therefore, laying down, as an abstract proposition of law,
all the relinquishment deeds executed by a particular co-sharer(s)
in favour of another co-sharer or some of the co-sharers, while
excluding the remaining co-sharers are not relinquishment
deeds, but gift deeds, would not be appropriate.
27. In Hari Kapoor (supra), another learned Single Judge of this
Court, while relying upon Kuppuswami Chettiar vs. A.S.P.A.
Arumugam Chettiar & Anr.16, observed that:
“A release deed can only feed title but cannot transfer title.
Renunciation must be in favour of a person, who had already title
to the estate, the effect of which is only to enlarge the right.
Renunciation does not vest in person a title where it did not exist.
Now, it cannot be disputed that a release can be usefully employed
as a form of conveyance by a person having some right or interest
to another having a limited estate, e.g., by a remainder man to a
tenant for life, and the release then operates as an enlargement of
the limited estate.”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3301/2024 Page 4 of 6
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.10.2026
20:15:54

28. From the abovementioned discussion, it is observed that the
release deed can only feed title but cannot transfer title. In this
Case, Late Sh. Sanjay Kumar became a co-sharer in the property
on the death of his father, Late Sh. V.K. Gupta in the year 2001.
Hence, he had a title in the property. Similarly, his mother, Late
Smt. Saroj Gupta was also a co-owner. The transaction was
between mother and son. Since it was between the family
members, the chances of economic consideration are remote.
Hence, in this case, the Relinquishment Deed has only added a
title to the already existing title of Late Sanjay Kumar. Therefore,
an error was committed in the impugned order by treating the
Relinquishment Deed to be a deed of gift and directing it to be
impounded. ”
(emphasis supplied)
11. In the present case, the petitioner was already a co-sharer in the
subject property, and the relinquishment by his siblings merely
enlarged his existing interest therein. The relinquishment deed dated
29.11.2012, therefore, cannot be treated as a gift deed merely because
the petitioner’s sisters relinquished their shares through a separate
instrument and the brother executed his Relinquishment Deed
subsequently. The subsequent deed executed by the brother on
02.01.2013 further demonstrates that the relinquishments formed part
of a transaction whereby the siblings intended to release their
respective interests in favour of the petitioner.
12. In view of the above, in the opinion of this Court, the
relinquishment deed dated 29.11.2012 whereby, two sisters of the
petitioner relinquished their shares in favour of the petitioner cannot
be said to be a gift deed.
13. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned
order is set aside.
14. By the natural corollary, the Sub-Registrar is directed to release
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3301/2024 Page 5 of 6
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.10.2026
20:15:54

the document, which is stated to have been impounded.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
OCTOBER 27, 2026
DU
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3301/2024 Page 6 of 6
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.10.2026
20:15:54