JUDGMENT :

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

1. The writ order dated 06.03.2025 made in W.P.No.6839 of 2025 & order dated 11.09.2024 made in W.P.No.20483 of 2024 are sought to be assailed in the present intra-Court appeals instituted under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

2. The Inspector Generation of Registration and the Sub-Registrar are the appellants. The respondents in both the appeals have instituted writ proceedings, challenging the refusal check slip issued by the Sub-Registrar, declining to register a release deed as well as a settlement deed executed by the grand daughter in favour of her grand mother. The Sub-Registrar opined that the benefit of Article 58 of the Indian Stamp Act, cannot be extended, since the definition of “Family” does not include grand mother. Thus, the Presentant of the document has to pay the stamp duty as required.

3. The Writ Court by expanding the scope of explanation to Article 58 of the Stamp Act and by stating that grand father and grand mother also will be inclusive within the definition of the “Family” under explanation to Article 58 of the Indian Stamp Act, allowed the writ petitions.

4. The learned Additional Advocate General would contend that scope of the definition contemplated under explanation Clause-2, Article-58 cannot be expanded by the Courts, since the provision is express and plain in language. Any such expansion would cause prejudice to the interest of the revenue. Thus, the order of the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside. In support, the learned Additional Advocate General would rely on judgments of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of T.Muthu Balu Vs. the Inspector General of Registration reported in 2014 (5) CTC 265 wherein, the Division Bench dealt with the similar issue and made the following findings:-

“15. We find that in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court and the use of the word "means" in Explanation to Article 58(a) of Schedule-I to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, there cannot be an extended or expanded meaning to the word "grand-child" to include "great grand-child" also, unless the Schedule specifically includes 'great grand child', as in the case of 'brother or sister', which was included vide G.O.No.126. We find that the definition of the word "family" found in Article 58(a) is exhaustive and not illustrative.

19. We, therefore, hold that the word "family" defined in the Explanation to Article 58(a) of Schedule -I, appended to Indian Stamp Act, 1899, would mean only such of those persons mentioned in the Explanation. Further, the definition to the word "family" found in Article 58(a) of Schedule-I of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, is exhaustive and not illustrative and it is applicable only to such of those persons indicated therein and it will not extend to other persons who do not form part of the definition "family". In the present case, since the settlement is in favour of great grandchild (great grand- daughter), the benefit of Explanation to Article 58(a) of Schedule-I of the Indian Stamp Act will not be applicable.”

5. In the case of the District Registrar, Tindivanam Vs. V.Ranganathan and another reported in 2008 (1) CTC 1, another Division Bench of this Court dealt with the issue relating to explanation of Article 58 of the Indian Stamp Act and held as follows:-

“12. The Explanation under Article 58, which defines the word, "family", reads as follows:

"Explanation For the purpose of this Article, the word "family" means father, mother, husband, wife, son, daughter, grandchild. In the case of any one whose personal law permits adoption, "father" shall include an adoptive father, "mother" an adoptive mother, "son" an adopted son and "daughter" an adopted daughter.""

13. Thus, it is seen that the word, "family" is given a restrictive meaning, in its Application to Article 58 and the same meaning is imported. to the word, "family" appearing in Article 45. Consequently, the respondents would be entitled to claim the benefit of concessional rate of stamp d