The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, an adopted child severs ties with the biological family and becomes part of the adoptive family, impacting the definition of 'family' for legal purposes.

1. The petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order of the second respondent, i.e., District Revenue Officer (Stamps), Chennai-1, dated Nil (March, 2012) in demanding deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,35,360/- in respect of document No.1150/09.

2. The contention of the petitioner was that the petitioner was the natural mother of one Rajesh. Out of love and affection, her son Rajesh had wanted to settle his property in her favour. Pursuant to the same, he had settled the property through his power agent D.Venugopal in her favour vide settlement deed, dated 13.04.2009. It was registered as Document No.1156/2009 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Anna Nagar. The document was duly registered after payment of necessary stamp duty and registration charges. The document was also returned to the petitioner. Since the date of settlement, she is in possession and enjoyment of the property. While so, she had received a notice, dated 18.11.2010 from the third respondent, wherein she was asked to pay Rs.78,000/-as deficit amount (Rs.70000/- being the deficit stamp duty and Rs.8000/- towards deficit registration charges) and thereafter to receive the original document with necessary certificate pursuant to the said payment. The said order came to be issued on the basis of the audit objection made in the department. The petitioner was informed that failure to pay the stamp duty will result in invocation of revenue recovery proceedings. The demand made by the respondents was illegal and was passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner. It was also silent as to on what basis the deficit stamp duty and registration charges were demanded from her. Even though she had sent an objection on 24.11.2010, they remained silent without any response and they have not provided any clarification. Since she is in possession of green card, she is mandated to stay in the USA for a period of six months every year. Therefore, she could not do any follow up action. It is under these circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed. She was forced to stay in the US from 04.04.2012 to 31.01.2013. Hence the demand was illegal.

3. It is stated by her that the property belonged to one late Sarojini, D/o.Late T.K.Rajagopalan. The late Sarojini was a spinster. Out of love and affection, she adopted the petitioner's son Rajesh vide adoption deed dated 26.10.1979. It was also registered on the file of the Additional Sub Registrar Office, Periamet as document No.278 of 1979. The said Sarojini left behind her the house property to the said Rajesh being the sole surviving legal heir. Thus, the petitioner's biological son had inherited the said property. Since then, he has been in enjoyment of the property.

4. In the writ petition, notice on admission was granted on 09.09.2012. The learned Special Government Pleader was directed to get instructions. Accordingly, the learned Special Government Pleader produced the correspondence with reference to the demand of levy of deficit stamp duty.

5. On 30.9.2011, the Sub Registrar (In-charge), Sub Registrar Office, Anna Nagar sent a letter to the District Revenue Officer (Stamps), Chennai stating that the document, i.e., the settlement deed was submitted for registration on 13.4.2009. It was written by V.Rajesh, S/o.R.Sarojini through his power agent D.Venugopal. The document was written in favour of the petitioner Vanaja, W/o.D.Venugopal. It was an house property situated in the 6th Street, B-Block, Anna Nagar East. The value of the settlement was filed as Rs.10 lakhs in favour of the biological mother. But the market value of the property worked out to Rs.18,17,000/-. For the landed property alone, it worked out to Rs.1,45,360/-, which was not included in the value of settlement. Therefore, the stamp duty to be leviable was Rs.1,35,360/-. The Sub Registrar made remarks that once a person is given in adoption to an another couple, it cannot be said that biological mother i