Ratios:
a. Members of family illustrated in Art.58 are only illustrative and not exhaustive and it includes step mother.
b. Treatment of step-mother in other Acts may be taken as an aid to understand her status for the purpose of Art.58 in Sec. 1 of Stamp Act. Editor’ Note: For a similar interpretation of step-mother see also the ruling Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat reported in 1996 (4) SCC 479

1. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition challenging the proceedings of the second respondent dated 07.08.2008 with a further direction directing the respondents to treat the deed of release executed by his stepmother in his favour and his brother dated 111. 2007 to be classified as transaction between the family members as per Article 58 of Schedule-I of Indian Stamp (Tamilnadu Amendment) Act 31 of 2004.

3. The short facts which are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition, are set out here under:-

1. The property bearing No.58/A, Block No.109, T.S.No.4816, R.S.No.41 Part, in T.Nagar Village, measuring an extent of 9 Grounds and 964 sq.ft. along with immovable properties at various places in Andhra Pradesh were acquired by the petitioners grandfather late S.V.Ranga Rao, who died intestate on 18.07.1974 leaving behind his wife Samarla Leelavathi and his only son Koteswara Rao to inherit his properties. During the life time of Samarla Leelavathi, she had executed a Will dated 111. 1999 in respect of her 5/8th share and she died 25.04.2000. On her death, Koteswara Rao, the father of the petitioner and his children, viz., the petitioner, the other son and daughter acquired their rights in the properties. After the death of the petitioners mother S.Vijayalakshmi, his father married one Samarla Manjula in the year 1988 and thereafter, the said Koteswara Rao died intestate on 18.07.1989 leaving behind his stepmother Samarla Manjula and his two sons viz., the petitioner and one S.V. Ranga Rao and daughter Adimulam Lakshmi Priya to inherit his undivided shares.

2. The stepmother Samarla Manjula filed a suit for partition for allotment of 5/32nd share of various properties acquired by Koteswara Rao in O.S.No.19 of 1997 before the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Eluru, which ended in a compromise, wherein, she was allotted 5/32nd share in 9 Grounds and 964 sq.ft. approximately 1-1/2 Grounds at New No.58/A, Block No.109, T.S.No.4816, R.S. No.41 Part in T.Nagar Village apart from other properties.

3. The stepmother Samarla Manjula had no issues and out of love and affection, she had executed a deed of release, releasing her right, title and interest over her undivided 5/32nd share in the property referred to above in favour of the petitioner and his brother on 111. 2007 before the second respondent office. The stamp duty had been paid as per Article 58 Schedule-I of the India Stamp (Tamilnadu Amendment) Act, 31 of 2004 apart from a sum of Rs.2,000/- as registration fees.

4. The second respondent has kept the said deed as pending document and withholds the same without referring it to the Collector for adjudication under Section 31 and Section 47 (A) of the Stamp Act.

5. On 02.08.2008, the second respondent issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty together with deficit registration fees. The said notice was received by him only on 09.08.2008. Challenging the said notice, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.21625 of 2008 before this Court. However, in the meantime, the second respondent has passed the impugned order dated 07.08.2008 under Section 40(1)(b) of the Stamp Act calling upon him to pay the deficit stamp duty. Hence, the petitioner has withdrawn the writ petition in W.P.No.21625 of 2008 with liberty to challenge the final order dated 07.08.2008.

6. As per Article 58 Schedule - I of the Indian Stamp (Tamilnadu Amendment) Act, 31 of 2004, mother shall include not only adoptive mother, but also stepmother. While so, the second respondent without considering the same, had directed the petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty together with deficit registration fees by the impugned order dated 07.08.2008. Hence, the petitioner has to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition challenging the said order.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly