Explained: Haryana’s stamp duty exemption for daughters’ children

What exactly happened?

On June 16, 2014, the Haryana government remitted 100 per cent stamp duty under Section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, on property transfer deeds executed during the owner’s lifetime in favour of specified blood relations, including parents, children, grandchildren, siblings and spouses.

However, while the English version of the notification broadly used the term “grandchildren”, the Hindi version mentioned only ‘pautra-pautri’, which generally refers to a son’s children. This created confusion at the level of local sub-registrar offices and, often, resulted in daughters’ children being denied the stamp duty exemption.

Why did it not become an issue earlier?

The issue remained largely unnoticed because property transfers in Haryana have traditionally followed a patriarchal pattern. Agricultural land, residential plots and other immovable property are generally transferred by parents to their sons, while transfers in favour of daughters have historically been less common.

In some cases, property owners also transferred property directly to their grandsons or granddaughters. However, since transfers to daughters themselves were relatively fewer, transfers to their children were even less common. As a result, the ambiguity in the notification did not emerge as a major administrative issue.

How did it become an issue?

The issue began receiving greater attention in recent years amid rising property prices and greater awareness of women’s equal property rights following important judicial decisions.

Although transfers to daughters remain relatively limited, more families have started transferring property to their daughters. In some cases, property owners also sought to transfer property to their daughters’ children, just as they could to their sons’ children.

A senior Haryana government official said that over the past year, the authorities began receiving representations from families seeking to transfer property to their daughters’ children and requesting that they be given the same stamp duty exemption available for sons’ children.

How did Haryana officials resolve the ambiguity?

During examination of the issue, officials found the discrepancy between the English and Hindi versions of the 2014 notification. While the English version referred broadly to “grandchildren”, the Hindi version specifically referred to pautra-pautri, creating an impression that only a son’s children were covered.

Officials also examined Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which lays down the rules of intestate succession for the property of a Hindu male.

Based on the legal position and the wording of the original notification, the authorities concluded that there was no reason to deny the same stamp duty benefit to a daughter’s children.

A file was subsequently moved for approval. It was cleared by Haryana Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Dr Sumita Misra and subsequently approved by Chief Minister Nayab Singh Saini.

The Haryana government then issued a corrigendum in the state gazette on August 13, replacing the earlier reference to pautra-pautri with pautra-pautri, dohata-dohati/nati-natin. The clarification means that children of daughters are entitled to the same 100 per cent stamp duty exemption as children of sons when eligible property is transferred to them during the owner’s lifetime.

How do women activists view the decision?

Women’s rights activists have welcomed the clarification but said it should have come much earlier.

Shakuntala Jakhar, vice president of the Haryana unit of the All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA), described the move as positive, saying it would make it easier for families to transfer property to daughters’ children without an additional stamp duty burden. In Haryana, for general cases, the stamp duty for registration of a sale deed is generally 7 per cent for men and 5 per cent for women.

Jakhar said the government and social organisations must do more to strengthen women’s property rights and ensure that girls are able to exercise their legal rights in their fathers’ property.

What does the law say about equal property rights?

In a significant judgment aimed at ensuring “right of equality” of a daughter in a Hindu Undivided Family, the Supreme Court in August 2020 held that she will have coparcenary right, or equal right to family property by birth, irrespective of whether her father was alive or not as on September 9, 2005 – when Parliament recognised this right by amending the Hindu Succession Act of 1956.

Effectively granting retrospective status to the amendment, a Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, S Abdul Nazeer and M R Shah ruled: “The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities… Since the right in coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that father coparcener should be living as on 9.9.2005.”