The main legal point established in the judgment is that the availability of an alternate remedy under the Stamp Act precludes the invocation of writ jurisdiction.

F. M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. :- The Joint Sub Registrar-I, District Registrar Office, Coimbatore is the appellant. The challenge is to the order of the learned single Judge dated 21-9-2004 in W.P. No. 15449 of 2004.

2. By the impugned order, the respondent's writ petition challenging the notice dated 19-3-2004 came to be allowed with a further direction to the appellant herein for registration of the document presented by the respondent within a period of 15 days and for the release of the same.

3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the writ petition, are required to be stated.

There was a partition between the respondent, his father and his brother on the one side and the paternal uncle and his sons on the other side, by a deed dated 22-8-2003. Under the said document, the respondent was allotted 'A' Schedule property while 'B' Schedule property was allotted to the paternal uncle and his children. That part of the deed by which, 'A" Schedule property came to be allotted to the respondent is found in Clause (1) of the document which reads as under :

(1). With the consent and concurrence of all parties and by way of family arrangement, the properties set out in Schedule 'A' hereunder is allotted to Mr. Prasanth Chandran, No. 3 of the Parties of the First Part exclusively, to be held and enjoyed by him as on absolute owner thereof. The allotment of the 'A' Schedule property as above to Mr. Prashanth Chandran, is accepted and acknowledged as the allotment of the property in full and final settlement of the rights of the Parties of the First Part in Toto."

4. The document was stated to have been presented immediately after its execution before the appellant. Thereafter by a notice dated 19-3-2004, the appellant held that the said document has been lying in its office as 'Pending Document' bearing No. 142/2003, inasmuch as the recitals contained in the said document would fall within provision of Section 5 of the Indian Stamp Act and therefore, it was impounded for payment of deficit stamp duty and registration fee as well as penalty. In the said notice, after referring to Clause (1) and (2) of the document, the appellant also reached a conclusion that it required collection of deficit stamp duty of Rs. 2,66,530/-, deficit registration fee of Rs. 66,700/- apart from penalty of Rs. 5000/-, in all a sum of Rs. 3,38,230/-. While directing the respondent to show cause why the deficit stamp duty and registration fee along with penalty should not be collected, it was also held that the respondent could prefer an appeal within the time stipulated, namely, 15 days of the receipt of the said letter dated 19-3-2004. The respondent submitted his reply dated 5-4-2004, contending that it was purely a partition deed, that in a partition deed, all the co-sharers need not be allotted properties, that the properties partitioned under the document can be allotted to one or some sharers to the exclusion of others and therefore, the said document cannot be construed as a composite deed of partition as well as release. Thereafter, the appellant is stated to have passed an order dated 7-5-2004, holding that the explanation submitted by the respondent was not convincing and therefore, a sum of Rs. 2,66,530/- by way of deficit stamp duty along with a sum of Rs. 5000/- by way of penalty was being levied. The said order also stated that if the respondent is aggrieved against the said order, he can file his appeal.

5. The respondent filed the present Writ Petition on 20-5-2004. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, there is no reference to the order dated 7-5-2004. The challenge was only to the earlier show cause notice dated 19-3-2004. On behalf of the appellant, a counter affidavit was filed on 29-7-2004, in which, it is stated that after due consideration of the respondent's reply, the earlier order dated 19-3-2004 was confirmed and that 30 days time was given to enable the respondent to approach the Chief Controlling Revenue A