Rajamannar, C.J.,-The question referred to us by the Board of Revenue under section 57 of the Stamp Act is whether the document styled a deed of release executed on 23rd May, 1949, is liable to be charged with stamp duty under Article 39(b), 44(b) and 19 of Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act respectively.

The Referring Authority was of the opinion that the document in question came under all the three articles and therefore liable to be charged with stamp duty under each of these three articles. Article 39(b) of Schedule 1-A of the Act deals with an instrument of dissolution of partnership Article 44(b) is an article applicable to an instrument of release whereby a person renounces a claim upon another person or against any specified property. Article 19 applies to a conveyance.

The executants of the deed are three persons, who along with two persons in whose favour the deed was executed, were partners of a registered firm known as “Gudiyatham Lungi Company.” The executants appear to have ceased to be partners of the firm from and after 12th April, 1949. The preamble recites that the releasors, i.e., the executants were co-owners of the immovable property described in the schedule to the document as house and ground bearing Door No. 47 in Coral Merchant Street, G.T., Madras, entitled to three-fifths share therein, that the book value of the said property was a sum of Rs.16,431-2-6 and that the releasors after having retired from the firm, desire to renounce all interest in the said property by deed, receiving the proportionate value of their shares in cash. The operative portion of the document in so far as it is material is as follows:

“This deed witnesseth that, in consideration of the sum of Rs.9,858-9-7 (rupees nine thousand eight hundred and fifty eight, annas nine, and pies seven), the receipt whereof on or before the date of these presents through adjustment of accounts..........the releasors hereby release, extinguish, abandon, cancel, and otherwise relinquish all their respective rights, claim, demands or interest, in any manner in to any extent in respect of the property set out and fully described in the schedule hereunder.”

Now let us examine each one of the articles under which the document is said to be chargeable with stamp duty. Article 39(b) need not detain us for any length of time. The document is obviously not a deed of dissolution of partnership and we did not understand the learned Government Pleader to maintain that it is. The parties charged with the stamp duty agree that it is a release falling under Article 44(b) and so we need not discuss this article either.

It only remains to consider whether the instrument falls within the definition of conveyance under Article 19 of Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act. We are of opinion that it does not. The document proceeds on the footing that the five persons, namely, the three executants and the two persons in whose favour the instrument was executed, who were carrying on business of that firm owned the property as co-owners, the executants being entitled to a three-fifths share and the other two being entitled to the remaining two-fifths share. It is not the case of any one that there was a division of the property by metes and bounds in accordance with the said shares. In such circumstances the document in and by which one co-owner purports to abandon or relinquish his claim to the share to which he would be entitled would be in the nature of a release within Article 44.

In such a case there need be no conveyance as such by one of the co-owners in favour of the other co-owners. Each co-owner in theory is entitled to enjoy the entire property in part and in whole. It is not therefore necessary for one of the co-owners to convey his interest to the other co-owner. It is sufficient if he releases his interest. The result of such release would be the enlargement of the share of the other co-owner. There can be no release by one person in favour of another, who is not already en

Click Here to Read the rest of this document