<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2007 (4) TMI 785 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458838</link>
    <description>A decree or instrument that itself effects partition is chargeable to stamp duty under Article 45 of Schedule I, but an oral family settlement or oral partition is not an instrument of partition. A written memorandum or compromise order that merely records a completed oral settlement and existing division of property does not create or extinguish rights for the first time, and therefore does not attract stamp duty or compulsory registration as a partition instrument. On the stated facts, the parties had already orally settled the properties and taken possession accordingly, so the Registry&#039;s insistence on valuation and stamp duty before drawing the decree was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2024 15:37:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=778243" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (4) TMI 785 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458838</link>
      <description>A decree or instrument that itself effects partition is chargeable to stamp duty under Article 45 of Schedule I, but an oral family settlement or oral partition is not an instrument of partition. A written memorandum or compromise order that merely records a completed oral settlement and existing division of property does not create or extinguish rights for the first time, and therefore does not attract stamp duty or compulsory registration as a partition instrument. On the stated facts, the parties had already orally settled the properties and taken possession accordingly, so the Registry&#039;s insistence on valuation and stamp duty before drawing the decree was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458838</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>