1. Allowance for used, spoiled and rendered unfit stamps are provided in Chapter V of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959. The District Collector is authorised there under to make such allowances with respect to the specified and enumerated instances, for availing allowance, shown in Section 47 of the Act, subject to the time lines prescribed in Section 48 for making applications for such reliefs.

2. The facts presented in this case would, at first glance, cause suspicion that the applications for relief under Section 47, made by the petitioners, is beyond the time fixed in Section 48 but the petitioners assert it to be otherwise, relying on the second proviso to the said Section, which they predicate is an exception to the general time line, which can be invoked for reasons caused due to unavoidable circumstances.

3. The facts presented here are very peculiar and a decision on the countervailing contentions would depend on its clear understanding. The most essential of the factual circumstances are as below:

4. The petitioners in this writ petition say that the first petitioner and his the brother late Narayanankutty were the co-owners and in joint possession of a property having an extent of 3.22 acres in Sy.No.1037/2 of Anthikkadu SRO. They submit that after the death of Narayanankutty his share devolved on the second petitioner, who is his wife and on their major children by name Sindhu and Sujith. The petitioners assert that for the benefit and welfare of the family, the first petitioner, along with his deceased brother, had decided to partition the said property and that for such purpose a partition deed was executed and produced for registration before the competent authority. A copy of the said partition is produced as Exhibit P1.

5. The petitioners say that on account of an inadvertent error, which occurred at the time of preparing Exhibit P1, in addition to the above property, an extent of 2.23 acres comprised of in Sy.No.1037/2, which is exclusively owned by the first petitioner, also happened to be included in the partition deed. It appears that when Exhibit P1 deed was submitted for registration, the Sub Registrar impounded the same on the ground that, since it includes a property owned individually and exclusively by the first petitioner, it will have to be deemed as a conveyance of sale under Section 2(d) of the Kerala Stamp Act ('the Act' for short) and that the stamp duty ought to have been remitted as per Schedule 29 of the Act. The documents, the petitioners say, were thereafter sent by the Sub registrar to the District Registrar for valuation of the stamp duty, who appear to have passed an order directing the first petitioner and Narayanankutty to remit an amount of Rs.6,06,950/-, along with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, treating Exhibit P1 as a conveyance under Section 2(d) of the Act.

6. This led to the first petitioner and his brother late Narayanankutty to challenge the order of the District Registrar by filing W.P.(C)No.12504/2012, pending which Narayanankutty died and the second petitioner came on record as his legal heir. The said writ petition was disposed of by Exhibit P2 judgment wherein this Court quashed the order issued by the District Registrar impounding the document as also the order of determination of the stamp duty and penalty and directed the District Registrar, Thrissur to release the partition deed impounded so as to enable the petitioners to register a rectification deed. In the judgment, the word 'rectification' was incorrectly shown as 'ratification' and therefore, as per order dated 30.06.2015 it was corrected.

7. The petitioners say that after obtaining the certified copy of Exhibit P2, they approached the Sub Registrar for executing a rectification deed, when they became aware that Exhibit P1 partition deed had not been registered and that it had been impounded even before such registration. The petitioners have, therefore, executed a fresh partition deed on 12.10.2015 with respect to the pro