V. Ramasubramanian, J.

1. The District Registrar, Villupuram District and the Sub-Registrar, Gingi, have come up with the present Writ Appeal against the order of the learned Judge allowing the Writ Petition with a direction to the second appellant to release a deed of partition presented by the respondents herein on 11. 2006, for Registration, without collecting the deficit stamp duty charged by the appellants.

2. We have heard Mr. P. Raja Kalifulla, learned Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr. P. Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The respondents herein are the sons of two brothers by name Varadharaja Nainar and Perumal Nainar. They entered into a deed of partition-dated 11. 2006, in respect of certain properties in Sakkarapuram Village, Gingi Taluk, Villupuram District and presented the same for registration on the same day. The total market value of the properties partitioned between the respondents, was declared to be Rs.3, 01,11,642.50 but the respondents had paid a fixed stamp duty of Rs.20,005/-. Since the second appellant, before whom the document was presented for registration, did not agree with the stamp duty paid on the document, the second appellant assigned P. No.2 of 2006 to the said document, indicating thereby that it was kept as a pending document.

4. Thereafter, the second appellant referred the document to the first appellant, for a clarification. The first appellant passed an order dated 3. 2006 calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the deficit stamp duty to the tune of Rs.6,16,125/-together with penalty of Rs.1,875/-should not be recovered from them. The respondents submitted their objections on 13. 2006, after considering which, the first appellant passed an order dated 23. 2006 directing the respondents to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.6,16,125/- together with a penalty of Rs.1,875/- (totaling to Rs.6,18,000/-).

5. Aggrieved by the said order of the first appellant dated 23. 2006, the respondents filed the Writ Petition, W.P. No.12020 of 2007, praying for the issue of a Writ of mandamus to direct the appellants herein to release the document, pending adjudication proceedings regarding the determination of the actual stamp duty payable on the document in question. The said Writ Petition was ordered on 24. 2007, when it came up for admission, on the basis of a statement made by the Special Government Pleader to the effect that in similar matters this Court had ordered the release of documents pending for registration, subject to certain conditions.

6. The grievance of the appellants is that the case on hand is not similar to the cases where this Court had issued directions for the release of the documents pending for registration. In all other cases, where such directions have been issued for the release of documents, the dispute was only with reference to the market value of the property covered by the document in question. Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act enables the Registering Officer to refer a document to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property, if he has reason to believe that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in the instrument. It is in respect of such cases, where a dispute is raised with reference to the market value of the property covered by the instrument in question that a learned Judge of this Court passed an order in Ponnusamy, M. and others Vs. The District Collector, Erode District and others, 1999 (2) LW 231, directing the release of documents pending adjudication proceedings. Following the said order, several orders came to be passed directing the release of documents, with a rubber stamp affixed on the documents, indicating the pendency of the adjudication proceedings.

7. But the case on hand is not one where a dispute with reference to the market value of the property has arisen. This case is not one where the document is pending adjudication before the Collecto