This Writ Petition is filed challenging the notices issued by the second respondent proposing to levy a stamp duty on a document presented by the petitioner, by treating it as deed of settlement.

One Sri Poduri Viswanatham had three sons, by name, Venkata Satya Somayajulu, Subramanyam and Venkat Rao, and two daughters, by name, Ayyanki Gouri Devi and Vadlamannati Bhadrakali @ Bharathi. After his death, they were enjoying his property in joint. His three sons, and daughter, by name, Gouri Devi, died by 2006. The petitioner is the widow of the eldest son, who is late Venkata Satya Somayajulu.

The legal heirs of three deceased sons and deceased daughter, and the sole surviving daughter, by name, Bhadrakali, partitioned the property left by late Viswanatham, comprising of an open site admeasuring 351 square yards, and a cash of rupees one lakh, through a partition deed, dated 16.10.2006. The plot was divided into three equal parts of 127 square yards each, and they were allotted to the legal heirs of the three sons. Out of the cash of rupees one lakh, fifty thousand was allocated to the surviving daughter, Bhadrakali, and the balance, to the legal heirs of late Gouri Devi.

The stamp duty calculated at 1% was paid on the document. When the second respondent insisted that the stamp duty must be paid at 3%, the balance of 2% was also paid. However, the document was not released, even after the said payment, and through repeated notices, the second respondent demanded payment of Rs.57,000/-, being deficit, by calculating the stamp duty at 6%. He treated the document as a deed of settlement as defined under Section 2(24) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short ‘the Act’).

The petitioner contends that the document presented by them is a partition deed, pure and simple, as defined under Section 2(15) of the Act, and there was absolutely no basis for the respondents in treating it as deed of settlement. It is further contended that in view of G.O.Ms.No.1129, dated 01.07.2005, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the stamp duty payable on the document is 1%, and there was absolutely no basis for collecting any amount over and above that.

On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit is filed. The gist of the same is that the deed answers description of deed of settlement, inasmuch as a person who cannot be treated as family member, i.e., husband of Gouri Devi, was included, and in that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the impugned demand notices.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

The short question that arises for consideration is, whether the deed presented by the petitioner has to be treated as a partition deed or a deed of settlement?

Two definitions contained in Section 2 of the Act are important, in this regard. They are:

2(15) “Instrument of partition”:- “Instrument of partition” means any instrument whereby co-owners of any property divide or agree to divide such property in severally, and includes also a final order for effecting a partition passed by any revenue authority or any Civil Court and an award by an arbitrator directing a partition; and a memorandum regarding past partition.

2(24) “Settlement”:- “Settlement” means any non-testamentary disposition, in writing of movable or immovable property whether by way of declaration of trust or otherwise made –

(a) in consideration of marriage;

(b) for the purposes of distributing property of the settler among his family or those for whom he desires to provide, or for the purpose of providing for some person dependent on him, or

(c) for any religious or charitable purpose;

and includes an agreement in writing to make such a disposition and, where any such disposition has not been made in writing, any instrument recording, whether by way of declaration of trust or otherwise, the terms of any such disposition.

From this, it is evident that in the course of partition, division or distribution takes pl