A document executed by one coparcener in favor of the others, relinquishing their rights in the family property, is a release deed and not a conveyance.

( 1 ) THIS is a reference made under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, by the chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Hyderabad, regarding the stamp duty payable on two documents.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the statement of the case set-out by the Chief Controlling revenue Authority, the following are the brief facts of the case.

( 3 ) TWO identical documents dated 12th October, 1974 were executed by Smt. Maddula Prameela, who is the second wife of Sri Maddula Pandurangarao of machilipatnam as guardian of her two minor sons Jaya Veera Venkata Durga prakash and Girish Kumar the petitioners herein, in favour of their father maddula Panduranga Rao. The recitals of the documents are that Maddula panduranga Rao had four daughters through his first wife and in order to see that no disputes arise in future, the sons have received cash of Rs. 75,000/-, 990 grams of gold ornaments and 7000 grams of silver articles total value of rs. 1,25,000/- and relinquished their shares in the joint family moveable and immovable properties. They were executed on stamp papers of Rs. 30/- each as release deeds. When the documents were presented for registration before the joint Registrar of Machilipatnam, he impounded the documents as conveyance of sale and referred the matter to the District Registrar, who treated the documents as sale for Rs. 1,25,000/- each, chargeable with stamp duty of rs. 6,345/-and penalty of Rs. 1,000/-each. Thereupon, the executants preferred revisions before the Commissioner of Land Revenue, who confirmed the order of the District Registrar treating the documents as conveyance of sale, but reduced the penalty of Rs. 1,000/- in each case and dismissed the revision petitions. The petitioners filed two writ petitions Nos. 3020 and 3021 of 1977 before this court. The High Court directed the board of Revenue to consider, whether this is a matter to be referred to the High Court under Sec. 57 of the indian Stamp Act. Thereupon, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority had considered the documents and referred the following points for the decisions of the High Court:"whether the documents styled as release deeds by the petitioners are sale deeds or not and whether appropriate action can be taken under section 40 of the Indian Stamp Act as per the decision taken by the commissioner of Land Revenue in his C. P. R. No. 449/77. "

( 4 ) AS stated above, the recitals in the two documents executed by Smt. Maddula Prameela as guardian of her two minor children in favour of their father are identical. In the said documents, the two minor sons have agreed to receive cash, some gold and silver worth Rs. 1,25,000/- and relinquished their rights both in the moveable and immovable property in favour of their father. The documents are styled as release deeds. But the registering authorities treated them as sale deeds.

( 5 ) MR. Parabrahma Sastri, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has taken us through the various recitals in the documents and has contended that they are only release deeds. His contention is that Pandurangarao and his two minor sons constituted a Hindu Joint Family and when one of the coparceners relinquished his share in the Joint Family property in favour of the remaining member, the document only amounts to a release deed, but not a conveyance.

( 6 ) IN Subbanna vs. Balasubbareddi, a Full Bench of the Madras High Court, considered the question whether one member of a Hindu Joint Family consisting of several members can, irrespective of a partition of a family estate given his own interest therein to one of the other coparceners. The Full Bench considered the earlier decisions in Peddayya vs. Ramalingam I. L. R. 11 Mad. 406 and Thangavelu pillai vs. Doraiswami Piliai, 27 MLJ 272. The Full Bench considered the question whether the decisions in Peddayya vs. Ramalingam and Thangavelu Pillai vs. Doraiswami Pillai are good law, in view of the decision of the Privy C