T.K. Subramaniam vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (Stamps) and Inspector General of Registration, Madras

Srinivasan, J.—After notice of motion, this appeal comes up for admission today. Heard the counsel for both parties. Appeal admitted. By

consent of parties the appeal is taken up for final hearing and disposed of today.

This appeal arises out of a writ petition filed by two erstwhile partners to whom immovable properties were allotted in the dissolution of the firm

evidenced by a deed of dissolution dated 28-3-1983. There were four partners in the firm. The appellants were allotted the immovable properties

in the deed of dissolution. The other two partners executed a release deed on 21-1-1984 in favour of the appellants. The said deed was stamped

as a release deed. The District Registrar, Dindigul, demanded stamp on the footing that it is a deed of conveyance and on revision the Chief

Controlling Revenue Authority confirmed the same. The appellants approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India by filing a

writ petition to quash the same. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge who took the view that the release deed was not

one among co-owners because at the time of the execution of the release deed the releasers were not co-owners with the releases. In his view the

deed, though styled as a release deed was only a document of conveyance as held by the authorities. Hence the appeal.

We have perused the deed of dissolution as well as the release deed. We find that the immovable properties have been allotted in the deed of

dissolution to the appellants. The deed of release is only a sort of acknowledgment of the title of the appellants to the immovable properties which

was conferred on them by the deed of dissolution. It cannot by any stretch of imagination be treated as a conveyance of, the properties because

the releasers had no right to the properties at the time of the release. In that view, the document cannot be treated as conveyance and stamp

cannot be demanded on that basis. The view taken by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and d the District Registrar that the document in

question is a document of conveyance is not correct. Hence, we accept the contention of the appellants that the document is a release deed.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the order of the learned Judge is set aside and the writ petition for quashing the orders impugned is also

allowed. There will be no order as to costs.

Appeal allowed.