The main legal point established is that the relationship certificate issued by the revenue authorities suffices to establish family relationship, and the registering officer cannot insist on additional documentation beyond what is required by law.

JUDGMENT :

A release deed executed among the members of a family was presented before the Sub Registrar, Mattancherry. The Sub Registrar refused to register the deed holding that the stamp duty paid was deficient. It was opined that except petitioners 1 and 5 the rest of the parties to the deed would not come within the purview of the term ‘family’ as defined under Section 2(b) of the Stamp Act, 1959 and that the fee to be paid was to be paid in accordance with Article 48(c) insofar as the release deed operates with respect to the petitioners 2 to 4. The petitioners were directed to represent the deed after remitting the requisite stamp and registration fee and by producing the Legal heirship Certificate, Possession Certificate and also the original of the title deed.

2. Sri.G.Krishna Kumar, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioners 1 and 5 are the children of late Sri.K.V.Augustine and Treesa. He would refer to the relationship certificate produced as Ext.P3 and he would contend that late Sri.K.V.Augustine had 7 children namely, Alice, Mary Johny, Celine, Juliet, Antony, Franklin and Henry. Juliet, Antony, Franklin and Henry are no more. The 2nd petitioner herein, Sri.Thomas John is the son of Juliet. The petitioners 3 and 4 are the children of Antony. The legal heirs of Franklin and Henry are residing in the property. All the children of Augustine have ? share each over the property. It was for amassing the necessary funds for the marriage of the granddaughter of the 1st petitioner that she decided to execute the release deed in favour of the 5th petitioner, her sister. The petitioners 2 to 4 have also decided to release their 1/6 right each in favour of the 5th petitioner. It is contended that since the legal heirs of Franklin and Henry are residing in the property covered under the release deed, the petitioners cannot justifiably produce the possession certificate. He would contend that there was no justification in insisting that the legal heirship certificate should be produced as there is no such requirement under the Statute. According to the learned counsel, Ext.P3 relationship certificate issued by the revenue authority clearly would reveal that the petitioners 1 and 5 are the daughters of Sri.K.V.Augustine and the rest of the petitioners are the legal heirs of the other children. It is further contended that the original deed is also retained with the legal heirs of Franklin and Henry who are residing in the property and hence there cannot be any insistence that the original title deed should be produced. The learned counsel would further contend that insofar as the insistence made by the Sub Registrar as regards the applicability of Article 48(b) to the Schedule of the Stamp Act, 1959 insofar as it concerns the release by petitioners 2 to 4, the same is in accordance with law and he has no objection. He states that the shortfall of Rs.1,28,971/- of which Rs.1,14,303/-towards stamp duty and Rs.14,668/-towards registration fees shall be paid.

3. Smt.Mable C Kurian, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the registration was refused as the petitioners insisted that the release deed was liable to be registered under Article 48(a) of the Schedule. It is contended that the benefit of Article 48(a) can be extended only to the 1st petitioner. Now that the petitioners have come forward consenting to remit the deficient stamp and registration fee, appropriate action shall be taken is the submission. It is further contended that the petitioners are bound to produce the death certificates of the deceased and the legal heirship certificate to substantiate that they are in fact entitled to execute the release deed. It is contended that the petitioners are bound to produce the original title deed, the tax receipt/possession certificate etc. to prove that they are in ownership over the property.

4. I find that the relationship certificate issued by the revenue authorities clearly shows that Augustine, Treesa, Celin, An