S. Ramalingam, J.
1. One K. A. Venkatesan Chettiar died leaving behind him his self-acquired property which was inherited by his wife Manoranjitham and six daughters, all of whom were majors. The wife and daughters of K. A. Venkatesan Chettiar executed a deed of sale dated January 18, 1991, for a total consideration of Rs. 5,25,000 in favour of one A. Gopalakrishnan. In that sale deed, it is stated that, on the demise of K. A. Venkatesan Chettiar all of them have inherited shares in the property left behind by him and that each one is enjoying the said share but they are all joining together to execute the sale in favour of the purchaser. The registering officer called upon the petitioners to produce an income-tax clearance certificate as the value of the property conveyed is more than Rs. 2 lakhs. The present writ petition is for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the above proceedings of the Registering officer and for a direction to him to accept the document and grant registration of the same. The Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that, under section 230A of the Income-tax Act, a tax clearance certificate is necessary before the document of conveyance with respect to immovable property the value of which is above rupees 2 lakhs is registered.
2. The relevant portion of section 230A of the Income-tax Act is as follows :
'(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where any document required to be registered under the provisions of clause (a) to clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), purports to transfer, assign, limit, or extinguish the right, title or interest of any person to or in any property valued at more than who lakhs rupees, no registering officer appointed under that Act shall register any such document, unless the Assessing Officer certifies that -
(a) such person has either paid or made satisfactory provision for payment of all existing liabilities under this Act....'
3. The Learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that it is a case where the document which was presented for registration purported to transfer the right, title and therefore, the vendors should produce the certificate issued under section 230A of the Income-tax Act as a pre-condition for registration.
4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are all governed by the Hindu Succession Act, that on the demise of K. A. Venkatesan Chettiar, there is a devolution of interest according to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, whereunder each one of the heirs inherited a quantified share which is jot liable for fluctuation and in that quantified share, the heir gets and absolute right and no other share has any interest, right or title to the share so inherited by one share. He would rely on the decision of this court in K.V. Kishore v. Appropriate Authority : [1991]189ITR264(Mad) , wherein it was held as follows (headnote) :
'The original allottee of the land died in the year 1962. He being a Hindu governed by the Hindu Succession Act, on his death, his wife and children acquired a vested right to the definite quantified shares in the property left behind by him. As owners of their respective shares, they were competent to enter into a family arrangement which they did on April 8, 1987, under the terms of which, each one of the respondents Nos. 4 to 8 was allotted a definite share in the property. After April 8, 1987, they were individual owners of definite shares in the property. Each one could deal with only his respective share and he could not deal with the share of another. The property which so falls to the share of each individual will come definitely within the definition of the words 'immovable property'. Such a share was entitled to transfer his immovable property to a third person. Merely because a plurality of such individual owners joined together to enter into one single agreement to transfer their respective shares in favour of one or more persons, that would not make any difference to the property. It was not in dispute that the value of each such share was less than Rs. 10 lakhs. Section 269UD was not, therefore, applicable'.
5. In the instant case, there is a succession in favour of the heirs of K. A. Venkatesan Chettiar and each one of the heirs had inherited a share in the property of the said K. A. Venkatesan Chettiar which is a quantified specified share, not liable for fluctuation and, in respect of the share so inherited, each is a complete owner. If the owners of the shares of immovable property desire to sell their respective shares and execute a sale deed covering such share and if that share happens to be of value less than rupees two lakhs, no certificate under section 230A of the Income-tax Act is required. Merely because a plurality of shareholders happen to join together and execute one single document, it would not mean conveyance by a person of a property worth more than rupees two lakhs when the combined value of the shares so transferred by the sharer is his individual share. For the purpose of section 230A of the Income-tax Act, it is the value of the property of a person who makes a transfer which has to be considered. It is not in dispute that each one of the sharers, viz., wife and children, took an equal share. The value of their respective property, inherited by each one of the heirs, is less than rupees two lakhs because the total value of the property itself is only Rs. 5,25,000. In this view, the direction issued by the second respondent to the petitioners to produce an Income-tax Act cannot be sustained. The document in question will be registered, if it is otherwise found to be in order in accordance with law without insisting on a certificate under section 230A of the Income-tax Act. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.