The central legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of the transaction and the precise nature of the rights created by the instrument determine whether a deed should be considered a conveyance or a release deed, and this influences the assessment and payment of stamp duty.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Chandan Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Present petition is directed against the order dated 19.11.2015 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (in short 'CCRA') whereby that appellate authority has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 02.02.2015 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp), Varanasi determining deficiency of stamp duty Rs.3,70,160/- and penalty Rs.1,00,000/- with respect to a document claimed to be a release deed.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this much is undisputed that the petitioner had undefined joint ownership right in the property that became the subject matter of the deed dated 20.10.2014. By the said deed, the other joint owner in the property namely Leelawati Devi, (real sister of the present petitioner), released her rights in favour of the petitioner in that property. The deed further recites, in the past the petitioner had advanced to the said Leelawati Devi a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-.

4. In absence of any dispute as to the principal claim made by the petitioner as supported by the recital in the impugned deed, both the petitioner and the said Leelawati Devi had pre-existing undefined joint ownership rights in the property.

5. The revenue authorities have concluded that the impugned deed is a conveyance. Accordingly, they have determined and imposed deficiency of stamp duty and penalty.

6. The controversy at hand is squarely covered by the ratio of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Balwant Kaur Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1984 ALL 107. After the aforesaid pronouncement, an Explanation was added to Section 2(10) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. That statutory change was again considered by this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Dharam Pal 2008-RD-105-776. The same dispute was again raised and dealt with in another decision of a coordinate Bench in Raghvendra Jeet Singh Vs Board of Revenue 2015 (4) ADJ 53.

7. In my opinion, the controversy involved in the present case is squarely answered in Raghvendra Jeet Vs Board of Revenue (supra), wherein it was observed as under :

"22. To distinguish between a release deed, or a gift deed or a sale deed, the decisive factor is the actual character of the transaction and precise nature of the rights created by the instrument. In the case of co-owners each co-owner is in theory entitled to enjoy the entire property in part or 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 released his interest. The result of such a release would be the enlargement of the share of the other co-owner. The result of such a release should be the enlargement of the share of the other co-owner. A release can only feed title and cannot transfer title.

23. A document under which a Hindu coparcener purports to give up his right to the family property in favour of the remaining coparcener would not be a deed of conveyance but a deed of release. There is no difference in principle between such a document as between members of a coparcenary and as between co-owners. In order to class as a release, the executant of the instrument having common or joint interest along with other should relinquish his interest which automatically results in the enlargement of the interest and others. But where he executes the document in respect of his share in favour of a particular co-owner, it cannot be treated as a release and must come within the definition of conveyance.

24. A transaction to assume a character of conveyance, what is necessary is, transfer of interest from one co-owner to another co-owner. As against this, the provision of Article 55 of Schedule 1B of the Act stipulates that the release is that whereby a person renounces a claim upon another person or against any specified property.

25. A similar provision as contained in the