SHAH, J. ( 1 ) THE Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Gujarat State, ahmedabad, has referred the following questions for our decision as per the provisions of Sec. 54 (1a) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the "stamp Act" : (1) Whether the impugned instrument is a release without consideration falling under clause (b) of Art. 52 or a gift falling under Art. 34 of Schedule i to the said Act ? (1 ). (2) If the nature of impugned instrument is decided as Gift deed, whether the Collector is empowered to make inquiry regarding the value of the property which is the subject-matter of the said Gift deed ?" the aforesaid questions arise in the background of the fact that Gunvantrai prabhudas Khadayata and Pradipkumar Prabhudas Khadayata executed a deed dated 17/09/1977 which is termed as a release deed without taking any consideration on a Stamp Paper of Rs. 40. 00relinquishing their rights in favour of their parents, viz. , Shri Prabhudas Bhagwandas Khadayata and Smt. Manjulaben Amrutlal. The said instrument was presented for registration on 17/09/1977. The Sub-Registrar, Porbandar, impounded the said document under Sec. 33 of the Stamp Act and referred it to the Collector, junagadh, on 4/10/1977 as provided under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 37. The Collector, Junagadh, after scrutinising the facts of the instrument arrived at the conclusion that the true nature of the instrument was gift deed and as the parties had not set forth any amount or value of the property in the instrument, he called for the opinion of the Superintendent of City Survey in regard to its value. The Collector thereafter arrived at the conclusion that the approximate value of the property was Rs. 22,000. 00and on the basis of the said amount assessed the proper stamp duty and issued a show cause notice to the applicants on 1/01/1979. After hearing the Advocate of the applicants, the Collector determined that the deed in question was a gift deed and ordered to recover the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 2,450. 00 with penalty of Rs. 500. 00, i. e. , in all Rs. 2,950. 00 vide his order dated 6/06/1979. ( 2 ) AGAINST that order, the applicants preferred a revision application to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Gujarat State, under Sec. 53 of the stamp Act. 2,450. 00 with penalty of Rs. 500. 00, i. e. , in all Rs. 2,950. 00 vide his order dated 6/06/1979. ( 2 ) AGAINST that order, the applicants preferred a revision application to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Gujarat State, under Sec. 53 of the stamp Act. After hearing the Advocate of the applicants, the Chief Controlling revenue Authority confirmed the order passed by the Collector by his order dated 19/09/1979. Hence this Reference at the instance of the applicants. ( 3 ) FOR determining whether the deed executed on 17/09/1977 is a release deed or a gift deed, the following undisputed facts are required to be taken into consideration : (1) By a registered sale-deed dated 9/02/1968 the house in dispute was purchased by Manjulaben Amrutlal Khadayata as a guardian of Gunvantrai prabhudas (aged about 12) and Pradipkumar Prabhudas (aged about 10) for a consideration of Rs. 7,000. 00 from its owner. (2) In the deed dated 17-9-1977 executed by Gunvantrai Prabhudas and Pradipkumar prabhudas after attaining majority it was stated that - (a) the house was purchased by Smt. Manjulaben Amrutlal as a guardian of gunvantrai and Pradipkumar; (b) in that house property they were residing jointly; (c) Gunvantrai and Pradipkumar were major; and (d) both were maintained by the parents. By executing the said deed the executants have released theirright in favour of their mother Manjulaben and father Prabhudas. They have released their right without any consideration. ( 4 ) IN their statements which were recorded by the authority it has been stated that the applicants were residing previously in the said house as tenants; that house was purchased from the income of the joint family; at the time of purchase of the property minors were not earning and that the said house was purchased only in their names because of relationship and affection; after attaining majority sons have released their right from the joint family property without talking any consideration. It is also stated that their financial position was weak and in any set of circumstances if the deed is considered to be a gift deed, it may be treated as cancelled as they are not in a position to pay stamp duty and the penalty. It is also stated that their financial position was weak and in any set of circumstances if the deed is considered to be a gift deed, it may be treated as cancelled as they are not in a position to pay stamp duty and the penalty. ( 5 ) THE Collector, Junagadh, arrived at the conclusion that there was no evidence on record to establish that executants were co-owners of the property and that there was no provision in the Stamp Act that if the parties are not in a position to pay the stamy duty, the document requires to be cancelled. He also arrived at the conclusion that there is no evidence on record to prove that the house was purchased by the parents from their income. He also fixed the market value of the house at Rs. 22,000. 00 and directed the applicants to pay a stamp duty of Rs. 2,450. 00 and penalty of Rs. 500. 00. ( 6 ) AT the relevant time Art. 52 of the Stamp Act which provided for stamp duty on a release deed was as under : "description of Instrument Proper Stamp Duty 52. RELEASE, that is to say, any instrument (not being such a release as is provided for by Sec. 24) whereby a person renounces a claim upon another person or against any specified property- (a) if the amount of value of the claim does The same duty as a Bond not exceed Rs. 1,000 (No. 13) for such amount or value. (b) in any other case. Fifteen rupees plus one rupee fifty paise (S. C.) ( 7 ) FROM the facts stated above and particularly recitals in the deed, it is difficult to hold that the parents of the applicants were not having any right, title and interest or share in the property for which deed was executed. The title of the document clearly recites that it was no claim release deed (lt tjt Vthde) It is also recited in the deed that house was purchased by Smt. Manjulaben as their guardian. Executants and parents were residing jointly and that they were maintained by their parents. It is also stated that by the said deed whatever right and share they were having in the house is released in favour of their mother Manjulaben and father prabhudas. Executants and parents were residing jointly and that they were maintained by their parents. It is also stated that by the said deed whatever right and share they were having in the house is released in favour of their mother Manjulaben and father prabhudas. Hence, by the impugned deed the executants have renounced their claim against the house which was purchased by their mother in their names. As stated above, that property was purchased in the name of minors. It was treated by the parents at the most as Joint Hindu Family property, as stated by them. Once it is a Joint Hindu Family property, all the members of the h. U. F. would have share in the said property. There is nothing on record to negative the contention that the minors were having any income of their own or that they have purchased the property from their own funds. In the deed itself it is mentioned that the executants (sons) were maintained by the parents. There was no reason for the Authority to hold that the property was not belonging to the H. U. F. of executants and their parents. Once it is held that the property belongs to Joint Hindu Family, then there is no difficulty in holding that the deed executed by the applicants was a release deed and not a gift deed. ( 8 ) FURTHER, if the property is purchased in the name of minor sons by the parents from their money, at the most it would amount to a Benaim transaction. In that set of circumstances also it would be open to the executants to execute one release deed in favour of true owner of the property. Such a deed would be considered to be a release deed and not a gift deed because by the said deed the executants (sons) renounce all claims they may be having or are supposed to have against the property of which they are considered to be owners on the basis of the sale-deed executed in their favour in 1968. Such a deed would be considered to be a release deed and not a gift deed because by the said deed the executants (sons) renounce all claims they may be having or are supposed to have against the property of which they are considered to be owners on the basis of the sale-deed executed in their favour in 1968. ( 9 ) DEALING with a similar question the Madras High Court in the case of The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, Madras v. Marappa Vellalar, AIR 1977 Mad 51 , held that the document would be considered as a release deed executed by the executant renouncing all his claims if he had any and putting the title of its true owner beyond any cloud. The relevant discussion at page 52 is as under :"the recitals are very specific that the properties were purchased with the moneys sent by Mariappa Vellalar from Singapore out of his earnings in singapore and that title was always with Mariappa Vellalar. It also further stated that as soon as Mariappa Vellalar came to India, possession was delivered to him. In the document there is no kind of title or right claimed by Sambasiva vellalar. It is clear that the real title always stood with Mariappa Vellalar. In such circumstances, the document can only be a release deed executed by sambasiva Vellalar renouncing all his claims, if he had any and putting the title of Mariappa Vellalar, beyond any cloud. " ( 10 ) IN this view of the matter, we hold that the impugned instrument is a release deed without consideration falling under clause (b) of Art. 52 and it is not a gift deed falling under Art. 34 of Schedule I to the Stamp act. Question No. 1 is answered accordingly. ( 11 ) IN view of our answer to question No. 1, question No. 2 would not survive and is, therefore, left unanswered. ( 12 ) IF the stamp duty of Rs. 2,450. 00 with penalty of Rs. 500. 00 is recovered as per the order dated 6/06/1979, the Authority is directed to refund it to the applicants on or before 1/07/1994. Reference stands disposed of accordingly. ( 12 ) IF the stamp duty of Rs. 2,450. 00 with penalty of Rs. 500. 00 is recovered as per the order dated 6/06/1979, the Authority is directed to refund it to the applicants on or before 1/07/1994. Reference stands disposed of accordingly. ( 13 ) THE Registrar is directed to send a copy of this judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar to the Chief controlling Revenue Authority as provided under Sec. 56 (2) of the Stamp act. .