Ashok Bhushan, CJ

Heard Sri.P.I.Davis, learned senior Government Pleader appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This writ appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment dated 17/11/2014 in W.P.C.No.25707/2014, by which the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by modifying the impugned judgment to the effect that the instrument in question falls under Article 48 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959. The State, aggrieved by the said judgment, has come up in this appeal.

3. Necessary facts to be noted for deciding this appeal are:

One Kannan, S/o.Appu was the original owner of the property. On his death, Kochupennu, wife of Sri.Kannan and seven children became the legal heirs. Release deed was executed by the legal heirs in favour of the writ petitioner, Sri.Shibu, S/o.late Appu. Release deed was presented by preparing the same in a stamp paper worth Rs.1,000/-. Ext.P2 order was issued by the District Registrar holding a deficiency of registration fee with a penalty of Rs.500/-, making a total amount of Rs.59,395/-. The District Registrar opined that the stamp duty is to be paid as per Article 48(b) of the schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959. Aggrieved by the said order, the writ petition was filed praying for the following reliefs:

"i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Ext.P2 order issued by the 2nd respondent after calling for the records leading to its issuance;

ii) declare that the petitioner is coming under the persons mentioned in Article 48(a) of the Schedule to Kerala Stamp Act being the grandson of original owner of payment of stamp duty @ Rs.1,000/-;

iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 3rd respondent to register Ext.P1 release deed in the light of amendment to the Stamp Act, 1959 vide Kerala Finance Act, 2012 (Act 16 of 2012) by accepting stamp duty of Rs.1,000/- forthwith;"

4. Petitioner's case in the writ petition was that the petitioner being the grandson of deceased Kannan, the release deed is covered by Article 48(a) and the release deed should have been registered accordingly. The learned Single Judge accepted the said submission and disposed of the writ petition accordingly.

5. The learned senior Government Pleader submits that since the release deed comes under the amended Article 48(b), the order of the District Registrar is perfectly justified. It is also submitted that the release deed is not in favour of any of the relatives as mentioned in Article 48(a).

6. Replying to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner contended that the relationship between the parties has to be looked into and the petitioner, being the grandson, the case is clearly covered by Article 48(a). Reliance has also been placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Kerala v. Manuel [2013(1) KLT 825] wherein it was held that the children and legal heirs of the deceased are also members of the family and partition among family members will attract Article No.42.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that out of the 11 executants who have executed the release deed, only one person is the brother of the petitioner, hose release deed could have fallen under Article 48(a). Others, being sons and other legal heirs of Kannan, are beyond the purview of Article 48(a).

8. We have considered the submission of the parties and perused the records. Article 48(a) and (b) of the schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, as amended, provides as follows:

48 Release, that is to say, any instrument (not being such a release as it provided for by Section 24), whereby a person renounces a claim upon another person or against any specified property-

(a) When such release operates in fav