Today, On 12th March, Supreme Court dismisses plea against Section 129 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 allowing Muslims to gift without stamp duty, stating, “Bring this to Parliament; best forum is Law Commission of India after 75 years of independence realization.”
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the validity of Section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which allows Muslims to execute gifts without paying stamp duty after registration.
The petition also questioned Section 2 of The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, which recognizes property transfers through oral gifts.
The petitioner argued that Section 129 provides Muslims with advantages over Hindus, claiming there are no laws regulating property transfers for Muslims, granting them excessive and unrestricted power.
Chief Justice Surya Kant advised the petitioner to approach the Law Commission of India with his concerns.
The bench stated,
“It is an 1882 law, and suddenly in 2026, you challenge. Why have you not approached anyone? After 75 years of independence, you realised this law offends certain provisions. You can bring this to the notice of Parliament that this law might have escaped you. The best forum is the Law Commission of India,”
CJI Surya Kant questioned the petitioner, asking,
“What is your problem? How are you affected?”
The petitioner responded that the provision allows Muslim gifts to bypass registration, potentially causing financial losses to the public treasury.
Explaining that Muslims are exempt from stamp duty due to the provision and that non-Muslims are not granted the same exemption, as they must register gifts under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act and pay stamp duty, CJI Kant responded,
“If there is any loss to the public exchequer, Parliament can amend the law,”
The petition, filed by Advocate Parth Yadav, claimed that this religious distinction in procedures is discriminatory, violating Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution.
CJI Kant responded,
“The court was informed that the ability to transfer property through an oral gift could lead to uncertainty and be disadvantageous to non-Muslim litigants.”
The petition asserted,
“The provision of oral gift of immovable property prevalent in Muhammadan Law is against the theme underlying Article 14 of the Constitution of India as such provision is unreasonable, irrational, illogical, discriminatory and against the interest of the State and the public,”
In India, property transfers must typically occur through written instruments registered in accordance with the Registration Act and the Indian Stamps Act.
However, the existing law allows Muslims to transfer property via oral declarations without incurring stamp duty.
The petition argued that the practice of oral gifts contradicts the established Indian legal system, which aims to minimize litigation and provide certainty in property transfers. It emphasized that the provision for oral gifts, rooted in Muhammadan law more than 1400 years ago, does not align with modern legal standards.
Consequently, the petition claimed that this provision is ultra vires to Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution and has effectively become void under Part III, according to Article 13(1).
Case Title: Hari Shankar Jain & Anr. vs. Union of India
Click Here to Read More Reports On Muslim Personal Law
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
