T.V. RAJAGOPALA RAO, J.M. This is gift-tax appeal filed by assessee against order of AAC dt. 7th Jan., 1982 confirming order of GTO negating claim of exemption under s. 5(1)(vii) of GT Act. matter is simple and facts may be stated as under. assessee, Smt. K.. Venkata Seshamma has daughter by names Smt. Rama Devi who was given in marriage to Sri Bogapati Rama Murlidhar of Guntur Town. There marriage was performed on 12th May 1978. At time of marriage, Ac. 3.50 cents in Survey No. 3-222/A-A-1 in Patta No. 3992, situated in Muktinutalapadu village in Ongole sub-registry, Prakasam District was orally gifted and possession of land was delivered to daughter on 12th May, 1978. Subsequently, transfer deed dt. 19th July, 1978 was executed by mother, assessee in favour of her daughter, donee. value of land was put in document at Rs. 16,000 and property gifted was described as self acquired property of mother. GTO while completing assessment for asst. yr. 1979-80 under s. 15(5) of GT Act estimated value of transferred property at Rs. 17,000. He gave exemption under s. 5(2) of GT Act at Rs. 5,000. At same time when exemption of Rs. 10,000 was claimed under s. 5(1)(vii) of GT act, GTO refused to grant it one ground that no adequate proof entitling for exemption was put forward by him. Thus, GTO completed assessment on Rs. 12,000 under his assessment order dt. 10th Sep., 1981. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before AAC of GT, Vijayawaada. Two grounds were taken. first ground is that value of land should be accepted at Rs. 16,000 which is accepted figure of registration Department and there is no scope to enhance value of land by Rs. 1,000. second one is that GTO ought to have granted exemption of Rs. 10,000 under s. 5(1)(Vii) as gift was made on occasion of marriage of daughter. AAC accepted first contention and directed GTO to accept stated figure in document, namely Rs. 16,000 as value of gifted land. As regards second ground, he rejected contention of assessee for claim of exemption under s. 5(1)(Vii). He stated that marriage took place on 12th May 1978, whereas deed of gift was executed and registered on 19th July, 1978, long after marriage and as such exemption under s. 5(1)(Vii) was not available. He also relied upon Patna High Court decision in case CGT, Bihar vs. M.S. Rao (1976) 102 ITR 308 (Pat) in support of his finding. Thus, he partly allowed appeal under his impugned order dt. 7th Jan., 1982. Still aggrieved assessee came up in second appeal before Tribunal and contended that firstly there is no gift and secondly even it is treated as gift she is entitled to exemption under s. 5(1)(Vii) of GT Act. Since contention urged does not involve ascertaining any fresh facts we permit assessee to take up this contention, and thus matter stands for our consideration. We have heard Sri M.J. Swamy and Sri D. Manmohan, ld. Advocates, for assessee and Sri P. Radhakrishna Murthy, ld. Departmental representative. On behalf of assessee copy of settlement deed dt. 19th July 1978 was furnished. They have also furnished our orders dt. 28th Feb., 1984 passed n GTA No. 2/Hyd/83 in case of V. Veera Reddy, Guddibandivaripalem vs. GTO A-Ward, Tenali. first question which falls for our consideration is whether deed can be said to be executed by assessee in favour of relative dependant upon her for support and maintenance on occasion of marriage. There is no dispute that daughter comes under definition of word relative. According to assessee transfer was made on occasion of marriage of her daughter whereas Revenue contends that as transfer was not registered, nor was it executed prior to date of marriage or on date of marriage s. 5(1)(Vii) was not available for purpose. Patna High Court decision quoted in impugned order was relied upon. Now what is true meaning of words on occasion of them marriage of relative" falls for our consideration. Sampath Iyengar's three new taxes (1979) 5th Edition, Vol. NO. 2 at pp. 167 and 168 reads as follows. "Though word occasion has reference to time of marriage, it conveys idea of association with even viz., marriage event. expression on occasion of is not equivalent in meaning to phrase " on same date as. words on marriage do not mean "on day of marriage". They would mean either at or about co-incidence in time was designed and not accidental. Accordingly donation may precede marriage, for instance, to purchase dress, furniture, jewels, etc., in preparation for marriage, or it might be made even after to celebration of marriage, in order to meet expenses which have been incurred before or during marriage but which have not yet been paid or discharged." In CGT. A.P.-I vs. Bandlamudi subbaiah (1980) 123 ITR 509 (AP), it is held as follows as per head note of decision: "If there was arrangement on occasion of marriage of daughter to give her some property,. such allotment of property comes within scopt of s. 5(1)(Vii) of GT Act, 1958. It doers not matter that arrangement t time of marriage was reduced to writing much later either by way of partition deed or by execution of settlement or gift deed." IT is not dispute by Revenue that possession of transferred land was delivered to donee on date of her marriage itself viz., 12th May 1978 and since then she had been in possession of property. Therefore, what really took place in these case is that declaration of transfer was made at time of marriage to effect that extent of Ac. 3.50 cents of agricultural and is gifted to bride towards passupakumkuma and deliver of possession of land was made over to donee. donnee's mother was one of joint family members. Further it is also disputed that transfer was made in bid to discharge obligation which lies upon joint family and/or individual to provide for marriage expenses of unmarried daughter. In those circumstances whether registered document was necessary to complete transfer or to effect transfer under deed is question which naturally arises. In this connection, Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in Bhubaneswar Naik Snatoshrai and etc. vs. Special Tahsildar, Land Reforms Tekkali & Ors. AIR 1980 AP 139 is pertain to be noted. After reviewing case law in order to find out right of unmarried girl in family Justice Seetharam Reddy held as follows at p. 142: "What becomes manifest from conspectus of above case law is that daughter under Hindu law had at time of Manu right to share in father property along with her brothers. Afters considerable passage of time, ultimate remnant is that father is under obligation to maintain her within meaning of s. 3 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act which includes reasonable expenses of her marriage and, therefore, any property moveable or immovable given to her for or at item of marriage cannot to termed as gift within meaning if section 122, T.P. Act as essential ingredients of gift conspicuous by their absence in transaction of giving property to daughter by way of Pasupu Kumkuma which is both involuntary as well as for consideration Once said transactions taken out of ambit of s. 122 of T.P. Act, it is not all obligatory that said document, if it is in writing, requires any registration, within meaning of section 123, T.P. Act and under section 17 of Registration Act. In fact, it is quite apparent that transaction "Pasupukumkuma" could very well be done oraly and if any instruments in writing has been brought into existence, same does not require any registration as said instrument can be used for proof of transaction by way of evidence. There is yet another angle. unregistered instrument can be used for purpose of section 53-A, T.P. Act as proof of part performance. In this case, admittedly, possession has been given to daughters and in order to attract provisions of section 53A of T.P. Act it is needless that instrument should have been registered. As in that case, in this came also possession of land was delivered to donee on date of marriage held on 12th May 1978 and so according to above decision transfer of land should be deemed to have been complete on that day itself. We have already considered decisions reported as CGT vs. Ch. Chjandrasekhara Reddy 1977 CTR (AP) 38: (1976) 105 ITR 849 (AP), CGT vs. Bandlamudi Subbaiah (1980) 123 ITR 509 (AP) (AP) and CGT vs. M. Radhakrishna Gade Rao (1983) 37 CTR (Mad) 155: (1983) 143 ITR 260 *(Mad) as well as latest judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court dt. 1st April 1981 in C.R. No. 39/77 on its file (unreported till now) in our orders dt. 28th Feb., 1984 passed in GTA No. 2/11/83. In unreported decision, Andhra Pradesh High Court extracted its finding in last paragraph of its judgment which is as follows: "Shri p. Rama Rao, learned Counsel for Revenue submitted that view taken by A.T. that sum of Rs. 50,000 given lieu of maintenance n d marriage expenses of daughter could not be exigible to gift-tax is unsustainable. On other hand, it is contended by Shri N. Ranganadham, learned counsel for assessee that this amount of Rs. 50,000 was paid to daughter only in discharge of obligation case on father and subsequently on mother to provide for maintenance and marriage expenses of unmarried daughter of Hindu family. This contention receives support form decision of this Court reported in CGT vs. Bandlamudi Subbaiah, A.P.I. (1980) 123 ITR 509 (AP). On facts and circumstances of this case Tribunal recorded finding of fact that amount of Rs. 50,000 was paid to daughter in lieu of maintenance and marriage expenses. It is finding of fact. If this finding of fact is accepted it follows that amount paid to daughters was not by way of gift but only in lieu of maintenance and marriage expenses and hence said amount is not exigible to gift tax under gift-tax Act." In view of above, we would hold that in present case answer does not partake of nature of gift because under s. 20 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, which goes step further, male or female Hindu is under obligation to maintain his or her unmarried daughter and maintenance included getting daughter married in appropriate manner. Therefore, whether land transferred belonged to assessee in individual capacity does not alter legal position. Alternatively were we to have held that there was gift we would have held gift was on occasion of marriage and exemption under s. 5(1)(Vii) would be available with reference to date of registered document. Therefore, we set aside impugned order and allow appeal and hold that no gift-tax can be leviable. *** SMT. K. VENKATA SESHAMMA v. GIFT TAX OFFICER