The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the trust deed and the applicability of the Indian Stamp Act, specifically focusing on the provisions of Section 62(e) and Section 78, to determine the registration fee for conveying the trusteeship and trust properties.

D. Murugesan, J.

The writ appeal is directed against the order in the writ petition, whereby the challenge to the impugned order made by the appellant was rejected.

2. The facts in brief are that the Annapoorani Dharma Chatram and Yajurveda Patasala Trust, Tiruchottruthurai was created under two Wills dated 15.10.1895 and 7.8.1898 executed by one Vaidyanatha Iyer, S/o Ganesan Iyer. The object of the Trust was to run a Veda Patasala at Tiruchottruthurai and to perfrom daily pooja at the Oodaneswaraswami temple and for feeding brahmins during the Sapthasthana festival in the Tiruvaiyaru Panchanidheswarar temple. After the demise of the said Vaidyanatha Iyer, the Trust was managed by his adopted son Ganesa Iyer. There were some disputes between the said Ganesa Iyer and the executors of the Will of the late Vaidyanatha Iyer, and the same landed before the District Munsif Court, Tiruvaiyaru. The matter was ultimately compromised and that the management of the said Trust shall go to Ganesa Iyer and his descendants. After the demise of Ganesa Iyer on 17.9.1945, his son G.Vaidyanatha Iyer became the managing trustee and he was managing the Trust till the year 1986.

3. It appears that as the said Vaidyanatha Iyer was not in a position to manage the Trust due to his age, he executed a document dated 8.12.86 in and by which he appointed the appellant by name Usha Rajaram, W/o N.Rajaram as the managing trustee of the said Trust. The said document was produced before the Sub Registrar, Tiruvaiyaru for registration and the Sub Registrar was of the opinion that the document was a sale deed which intended to convey the properties belonging to the Trust. As the same was disputed by the appellant, the matter was referred to the District Registrar, Thanjavur, the second respondent herein for his opinion. The District Registrar also was of the opinion that the document produced before the Sub Registrar, though couched as trust deed, had in fact conveyed the properties. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the appellant before the Inspector General of Registration who, by his order dated 26.6.89, upheld the contention of the appellant and found that the document would fall under Article 62(e) of the Indian Stamp Act. In spite of the said appellate order, the Sub Registrar, Tiruvaiyaru appears to have insisted for payment of 1% registration fee on the value of the Trust property said to have been mentioned in the document. The said decision was communicated to the appellant by order dated 7.10.89. Questioning the same, the appellant again preferred an appeal to the District Registrar, who rejected the same. Against the said order, an appeal was also filed and the appellate authority found that the document conveyed the property and therefore the appellant should pay 1% towards registration fee. The writ petition filed by the appellant questioning the said order was also dismissed. Hence the present appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

5. The entire issue revolves upon the question as to what was conveyed under the deed was only the trusteeship or the trusteeship along with the properties as well. To find out the above, we perused the deed. Insofar as the intention of the executant by name Ganesa Iyer to execute the deed was that since he was unable to maintain the Trust due to his old age, the appellant being his daughter, he wanted to convey the managing trusteeship to her. Incidentally, the Trust properties are also transferred for the purpose of achieving the object of the Trust. It appears that not only the Sub Registrar and the District Registrar but also the Inspector General of Registration were of the opinion that by the deed the properties have been conveyed specifically and the appellant, having furnished the value of the properties of the Trust, should pay the registration fee on the basis of the value of the property. This opinion was