The petitioners are challenging Ext.P7 order issued by the Land Revenue Commissioner, confirming the order of the District Registrar (General), Kozhikode demanding additional stamp duty for the ‘release-cum-assignment deed’ executed by the Kerala State Financial Corporation Ltd. (for short ‘the K.F.C.’) in favour of the petitioners.

2. I have heard counsel appearing for the petitioners, Standing Counsel appearing for the K.F.C. and the Government Pleader for other respondents.

3. The facts leading to the writ petition are the following:-

A partnership firm by name ‘Meena Palace’ was granted a loan by the K.F.C. against the security of equitable mortgage created on land by partners by deposit of title deeds with the K.F.C. Later part of the mortgaged property was sold by the partners in favour of the petitioners. On default by the borrowers, the K.F.C. initiated recovery proceedings by attachment and sale of the mortgaged properties. The petitioners tried to block the recovery proceedings by the K.F.C. by filing original suit (O.S.No.297 of 1999) before the Sub Court, Kozhikode stating that part of the mortgaged properties were purchased by the petitioners and so much so, the K.F.C. have no right to attach and sell the properties. However, the Sub Court dismissed the suit upholding the entitlement of the K.F.C. to proceed with the recovery. At this stage, obviously with the concurrence of the mortgagors, the petitioners discharged liability of the borrowers by depositing Rs.41,26,988/- to the K.F.C. The K.F.C. executed the ‘release-cum-assignment deed’ in favour of the petitioners. However, on registration the Sub Registrar noticed the stamp duty payable under Section 25 of the Kerala Stamp Act read with Article 48(b) of the schedule to the Act which is the actual stamp duty payable, was not remitted and on account of the deficiency in payment of stamp duty, he referred the document for adjudication by the District Registrar (General), who held that the stamp duty payable under Article 48(b) was Rs.5,57,185/- as against Rs.2,06,500/- remitted by the petitioners. The impounding of document and demand of additional stamp duty of Rs.3,50,645/- and penalty of Rs.1000/- were challenged by the petitioners in appeal before the Land Revenue Commissioner, who, vide Ext.P7 order dated 22.12.2003, dismissed the appeal upholding the order of the District Registrar (General). It is against this order, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

4. The only question to be considered is the stamp duty payable on the ‘release-cum-assignment deed’ executed by the K.F.C.. Before proceeding to consider the exact stamp duty payable, I have to decide as to what exactly is the nature of transaction irrespective of naming of the document by the petitioners and the vendors. The petitioners have not made the partners of the borrower-firm who mortgaged the property to KFC, as parties in the writ petition. In fact, K.F.C. had only a mortgaged right over the property and on discharge of the debt, K.F.C. was bound to release the mortgage in favour of the partners, the original owners of the property. However, it appears that there was agreement for sale between mortgagors and the petitioners and therefore, the mortgagors kept themselves out of the subsequent transaction between the petitioners and the K.F.C. The K.F.C. accordingly, on remittance of the entire arrears, executed the ‘release-cum-assignment deed’ to the petitioners. The petitioners have no case that they have got any other document executed by the mortgagors after getting ‘the release-cum-assignment deed’ executed by the K.F.C. In other words, based on the document executed by K.F.C., the petitioners claim absolute right over the property and so much so, there can be no doubt that the document executed by the K.F.C. is not only a release deed, but a sale deed as well and the document is rightly styled as ‘release-cum-assignment deed’. The K.F.C., in exercise of their mortgaged ri