Indenture cannot betreated as deed of conveyance.

(This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 11.3.1999 in W.P.No.16405 of 1990.)

V. Ramasubramanian, J.

The appellants herein are aggrieved by an order of the District Registrar, Ootacamund, confirmed by the Inspector General of Registration and affirmed by the learned Judge in W.P.No.16405 of 1990, holding an Indenture dated 24.4.1987 as a deed of conveyance chargeable to stamp duty as a conveyance under Article 23 of Schedule I and not as a deed of release chargeable to stamp duty under Article 55 of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act.

2. The brief facts leading to the above appeal are as follows:-

a) By a deed of conveyance dated 26.4.1985 registered as document No.997 of 1985, in the Office of the Registrar of Nilgiris at Ootacamund, one B.Shivasubramani describing himself as the Manager and Kartha of a Hindu Joint Family, conveyed ¼ undivided share in the lands of the extent of about 22.46-5/16 acres together with the buildings thereon, in Ootacamund, Nilgiris District, to and in favour of the appellants herein.

b) By a subsequent Indenture dated 24.4.1987, the same B.Shivasubramani describing himself as the Manager and Kartha of the Hindu Joint Family, released and relinquished his ¾ undivided share in the same properties, to and in favour of the appellants herein. The market value of the properties was stated in the document to be Rs.10 lakhs and the executant valued his ¾ undivided share released thereunder at Rs.7,50,000/-. On this value, the appellants had paid a stamp duty of Rs.22,500/- under Article 55 of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act, treating it as a deed of release.

c) The said deed of Indenture was assigned pending document No.124 of 1987 and after about two years, the District Registrar, the second respondent herein, issued a show cause notice dated 3.5.1989 to the appellants, pointing out that the market value of the property as per the guidelines available with the Office of the District Registrar, was Rs.73,25,917/- and that a stamp duty of Rs.8,79,115/- was payable on the said document and that after giving credit to the actual stamp duty of Rs.22,500/- paid by the appellants, a balance of Rs.8,56,615/- was due and payable.

d) After receiving the reply of the appellants to the show cause notice, the second respondent herein (District Registrar) passed an order dated 27.6.1989, conveying the decision of the D.I.G. Of Registration to treat the document as a deed of conveyance chargeable to duty under Article 23.

e) The appellants filed an appeal to the Inspector General of Registration, the third respondent herein, on 26.7.1989, but the same was dismissed by an order dated 19.4.1990.

f) Challenging the said orders of the third respondent, the appellants filed W.P.No.16405 of 1990 and the same was dismissed by the learned Judge by an order dated 11.3.1999. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed the above appeal.

3. In the conspectus of the above facts, the short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the deed of Indenture dated 24.4.1987 executed in favour of the appellants herein, is a deed of release chargeable to duty under Article 55 or a deed of conveyance chargeable to duty under Article 23 of Schedule I to the Indian Stamp Act.

4. We have heard Mr.S.K.Rakhunathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.A.Arumugham, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

5. In support of his contention that the document in question is only a deed of release, Mr.S.K.Rakhunathan, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon three Full Bench decisions of this Court. The first decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants in The Board of Revenue, The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority vs. V.M.Murugesa Mudaliar of Gudiyatham (68 L.W. 534), was on a reference made by the Board of Revenue under Section 57 of the Stamp Act. In the said case, the property involved in the transaction was owned by five persons, as co-own