The main legal point established is that the demand for deficit stamp duty without affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioners was in violation of natural justice. Additionally, the interpretation of Section 62(e) of the Indian Stamp Act was crucial in determining that the deed of transfer was not a conveyance.

1. The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of mandamus, directing the third respondent to number the deed of transfer registered on 29.12.2009 as document No.P28 of 2009 and release the said deed of transfer to the petitioner.) Common Order As the facts relating to both the above petitions are one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioner has filed the W.P.No.17314 of 2010 seeking a direction to issue a writ of mandamus to the third respondent to number the deed of transfer registered on 29.12.2009 as document No.P28 of 2009 and release the said deed of transfer to her. In view of the subsequent order, passed by the second respondent herein, in Proceedings No.P28 of 2010, dated 30.08.2010, no adjudication is required in the said W.P.No.17314 of 2010 and hence, the same stands dismissed.

3. In W.P.No.25292 of 2010, the petitioners challenge the impugned order passed by the Sub-Registrar, Adyar Sub-Registrar's Officer, the second respondent, in proceedings No.P28 of 2010, dated 30.08.2010 and seek to quash the same stating that they have executed the deed of transfer before the office of the second respondent on 29.12.2009 and the same was registered as P28 of 2009, which has been incorrectly mentioned as P28 of 2010 in the impugned proceedings. It is further stated that they have also paid the necessary stamp duty and registration charges. Thereafter, the office of the second respondent had also issued necessary receipt for the charges and they were directed to collect the document. But surprisingly, after few weeks the second respondent had not returned the document. They were given to understand that since there was no Sub-Registrar at the time of presentation and registration of the document, the document was sent to the office of the Assistant Inspector General of Registration, South Chennai, Saidapet. Subsequently, as a new Sub-Registrar was appointed to the Sub-Registrar's Office, Adyar, the office of the Assistant Inspector General of Registration returned the document back to the second respondent and directed him to decide. Even though the document was returned to the second respondent by the office of the Assistant Inspector General of Registration, the second respondent had not numbered and returned the document. As there was a refusal in giving explanation as to the reason to hold back the document, the petitioners had addressed a letter dated 10.07.2010 to the second respondent requesting him to number the document. While so, by the impugned notice dated 30.08.2010, the petitioners treated the deed of transfer as a conveyance under Entry 23 Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act and demanded a sum of 2,36,000/-as deficit stamp duty and charges, which proceedings are under challenge in the said writ petition.

4. Admittedly, a Private Family Trust viz., Subramanian Family Trust, registered under the Indian Trusts Act, was created under a Deed of Declaration of Trust made at Chennai by the petitioners' grand-father for the benefit of the petitioners and their family, in the year 1984 and the Deed was registered as Document No.239 of 1984 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Purasawalkam, Chennai. While so, in the year 2009, the Trust decided to transfer the above said property to the petitioners, who are the only beneficiaries under the Deed of Declaration of Trust dated 04.09.1984, and such decision was acted upon by effecting transfer, whereupon, possession of the properties was also handed over to the petitioners. Subsequently, the deed of transfer was presented at the Office of the 2nd respondent on 29.12.2009 for registration by making payment of necessary stamp duty and registration charges. After registration, the petitioners were directed to collect the document after a couple of days, but, even after a week, the 2nd respondent did not return the document, therefore, a letter dated 10.07.2010 was addressed by the petitioners t