IMPORTANT POINT
A triangular property exchange among three parties can still be categorized as an exchange under law, provided mutuality exists, and stamp duty is computed based on the higher-valued property.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

1. Writ Appeal No.1512 of 2019 preferred by the State impugns the judgment dated 08.01.2019 of a learned Single Judge in W.P(C).No.21806 of 2013. Writ Petition No.16466 of 2023, on the other hand, was placed before us by order of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, pursuant to an interim order passed by a learned Single Judge in the writ petition, issuing directions similar to those issued in the judgment dated 08.01.2019 in W.P(C).No.21806 of 2013, and directing a posting of the writ petition along with the above writ appeal preferred by the State.

2. Briefly stated, the essential facts necessary for a disposal of these cases, without going into specific details with regard to the properties and parties involved in each case, are as follows; For the sake of convenience, and for understanding the nature of the dispute in these cases, the parties are referred to as 'X', Y' and 'Z' and their properties as “A Schedule”, “B Schedule” and “C Schedule” respectively.

3. Instruments styled as exchange deeds were entered into between 'X' on the one hand, and 'Y' and 'Z' on the other, whereby A Schedule property held by 'X' was exchanged for B and C Schedule properties held separately by 'Y' and 'Z', without any money passing between them as consideration. As per the exchange deed, 'X' became the absolute owner of B and C Schedule properties, and 'Y' and 'Z' became the joint owners of A Schedule property. The instrument of Exchange was drawn up on stamp paper for which the stamp duty amount was calculated as per Article 29 of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act.

4. When the Exchange deed was presented for registration, however, the registering authority impounded the document in exercise of his power under Section 33 of the Kerala Stamp Act and forwarded the impounded documents to the District Registrar General for his decision in terms of Section 37 of the Stamp Act. The latter authority opined that in so far as B and C Schedule properties were not jointly held by 'Y' and 'Z' to begin with, the document executed between the parties could not be termed as an instrument of exchange but had to be treated as two separate deeds of sale for the purposes of the Kerala Stamp Act. He accordingly directed a levy and collection of stamp duty as per Article 22 of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act. It was this decision of the District Registrar General that was impugned in the writ petitions.

5. The learned Single Judge, who considered W.P(C).No.21806 of 2013 found in favour of the writ petitioners on the reasoning contained in paragraphs 9, 10, 12 and 13 of his judgment, that read as follows:

“9. While ascertaining whether a document is a Deed of Exchange or a Sale Deed, the nomenclature assigned by the Deed to the parties and intention expressed in the Deed are of significance. In the case on hand, Ext.P2 Deed is titled as a Deed of Mutual Exchange. In reading the Deed, the real nature of transaction between the parties has to be decided having regard to the agreement between them and not on mode in which the consideration has been paid. A reading of Ext.P2 would bring out the intention of the parties, to exchange respective properties in their hand for consideration of properties only. There is no element of transaction of money disclosed in the Deed. Therefore, Ext.P2 Deed admits of no other interpretation except that of being a Deed of Exchange.

10. Mutuality is an essential characteristic of an Exchange. The intention of the parties to exchange the things in their hand in consideration of exchange of the thing in the hands of the other party is important. Mutuality will be of more significance in the matter of consideration being received. In the case on hand, the petitioner has exchange