Whether deed can be called as conveyance attracting stamp duty.

K.A. SWAMI, J.

When the writ appeal 1355 of 1993 came up for orders, we directed the Writ Petition 10903 of 1993 be also posted along with it for hearing. Accordingly, the writ appeal and writ petition are posted for hearing. We have heard both sides.

2. The writ appeal is preferred against the interim order passed in the writ petition, therefore the result of it would depend upon the decision in the writ petition. Accordingly, we first take up the writ petition for consideration.

3. The petitioners have sought for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 30-5-1990 and 3-5-1991, passed in I. No. 1/A1/90and Ra.Mu.57774/E3/9 by the 1st and 2nd respondent respectively.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the document dated 12-3-1990 produced at page 1 of the typed set of records does not warrant payment of stamp duty as demanded by 2nd respondent, in as much as the said document cannot at all be considered to be a document of conveyance.

5. On the contrary, it is contended by learned Government Advocate that the documents in question transfers interest of the outgoing partners to the partners who continue in the partnership, therefore there is conveyance of property from one living person to another and as such, the document attracts Art. 23(b) of the Stamp Act, hence the demand made by the 2nd respondent is justified in law.

6. We may point out here that the 1st respondent considered the document as a document of conveyance and demanded deficit stamp duty of Rs. 32, 400/- and a penalty of Rs. 100/- over and above the sum of Rs. 10, 800/- paid by the petitioners for registration of the document.

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners went up in revision before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent agreed with the conclusion of the 1st respondent, but nevertheless, demanded stamp duty on Rs. 6, 27, 750/- whereas the 1st respondent had demanded stamp duty on a sum of Rs. 3, 60, 000/-.

8. The fact necessary for the purpose of deciding the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners and the respondents are as follows :-

There was a partnership known as Raja Raja Textiles consisting of some of the parties to the document in question dated 12-3-1990 formed on 28-8-1989. It consisted of six persons, viz., V. Vaidhia Pillai, R. Chinnasamy, P. V. Palanisamy, A. Murugesan, V. Arumugham and S. Kamalam. This partnership on 6-1-1990 came to be reconstituted by another deed of partnership of the same date. As per the reconstitution, all the parties to the deed dated 12-3-1990 became the partners of Raja Raja Textiles. Thereafter, on 12-3-1990, the petitioners retired from the partnership and executed the deed styled as release deed on 12-3-1990. It is necessary to re-produce the said deed, because the questions involved are as to the nature of the deed and whether it attracts payment of stamp duty as per Art. 23(b) of the Stamp Act. Therefore, we reproduce the said document :-

"This deed of release executed on the 12th day of March, 1990 executed in favour of Smt. T. T. Meenakshi Achi, wife of Sri T. Thennappan, aged about 66 years, residing at T. N. T. House, T. N. Street, Kulipirai, Pudukottai District 622402; (2) Smt. T. Mekalla, wife of T. N. Thenappan, aged about 40 years, residing at C/5, Chemplast Colony, Raman Nagar, Mettur Dam 636403; (3) Smt. M. Visalakshi, wife of Sri Km. No. Meiyappan, aged about 39 years, residing at 64, Valipalayam Road, Tirupur, Coimbatore District 638604; (4) Sri T. Ramanathan, son of Sri T. Thenappan, aged about 35 years, residing at T. N. T. House, T. N. Street, Kulipirai (Page....2) Pudukottai District 622402; and (5) Sri T. Nachiappan, son of Sri T. Thenappan, aged about 32 years, residing at No. 105, 3rd Street, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore 641012. (The aforesaid five parties hereinafter referred to as the 'releasees' which expression shall wherever the context admits include their heirs, successors, legal representatives and assig