Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 15769
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T. R. Ravi, J
K.K PATHROSE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 42007 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI GIGIMON ISSAC, SRI TOBIAS TOGI MATHEW
For the Respondents: SMT.DEVISHREE
The definition of 'family' under the Kerala Stamp Act includes legal heirs, allowing reduced stamp duty for release deeds among family members.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Stamp Act - Article 48 - Release deed - Petitioners sought to register a release deed among family members with reduced stamp duty - Court clarified the definition of 'family' under Section 2(fb) and the applicability of Article 48, emphasizing the inclusion of legal heirs in the context of family transactions. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 5)
(B) Stamp Duty - Applicability of reduced duty on release deeds among family members - The court held that the amendments to the Act allow for reduced stamp duty for release deeds executed among family members and their legal heirs. (Paras 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, sons of late Ishak, sought to register a release deed transferring property rights from their sisters and the legal heirs of a deceased sister, which was initially denied by the Sub Registrar due to stamp duty concerns.
Findings of Court:
The decision by the Sub Registrar was set aside, and the court directed the registration of the release deed, confirming it was sufficiently stamped under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Stamp Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the release deed executed among family members and their legal heirs qualifies for reduced stamp duty under the Kerala Stamp Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the definition of 'family' includes legal heirs, and thus the petitioners are entitled to the benefits of reduced stamp duty for the release deed executed among them. The prior restrictive interpretations of the Act were overruled by subsequent amendments.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are the sons of late Ishak and late Aly.
They have a sister named Annamma and another sister named Sosamma, who is no more. The properties left behind by their late father were partitioned among the petitioners and their mother in the year 1985 as per partition deed No.4281/1985 of SRO, Puthencruz. 'A' schedule in the partition deed was set apart to the share of the 1st petitioner and B schedule was set apart to the share of the 2nd petitioner. Life interest was reserved in the mother. After the decision inMary Roy V. State of Kerala [1986 (2) SCC 209], the concurrence of the siblings was also required to deal with the properties. The mother of the petitioners is no more. Annamma and the legal heirs of late Sosamma expressed their willingness to execute a release deed, transferring their rights over the property to the petitioners, on an understanding that the 1st petitioner gives 15 cents to Smt.Annamma, and the 2nd petitioner gives 15 cents to the legal heirs of Sosamma. A release deed was prepared and submitted for registration by Annamma on 28.10.2024 before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent, by Ext.P3, informed the petitioners that the release deed is not executed between members of the family as contemplated in
2. The petitioners contend that the term “family has been defined under Section 2(fb) of the Act, and in case of partition among all or any of the members of the family and the legal heirs of a deceased family member, the benefit of reduced stamp duty is available under Article 42(a) of the Schedule to the Act. Reliance is placed on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C)No.27788 of 2019 wherein a widow of a brother intended to convey her individual property in favour of her husband's brother. There again the Registering Authority had objected to the registration stating that the widow was not a member of the family. This Court, after considering the effect of the amendment in Article 51A(a) of the Schedule to the Act, held that since it was a case of transfer of individual property held by the widow and not property held by her in her capacity as a legal heir, benefit of concessional stamp duty is not available. That was a case of a settlement deed and as per the provision, where the settlement is in favour of any of the members of the family and/or legal heirs of a deceased family member, the benefit was available.
3. As far as a release deed is concerned, the governing provision is
“48. Release that is to say, any instrument (not being such a release as is provided by Section 24), whereby a person renounces a claim upon another person or against any specified property.-
(a) When such release Two rupees for every operates in favour of any rupees 1000 or part of the members of the thereof of the amount of family and/or legal heirs the fair value of land and of the deceased family the values of other member properties or claims of which the right is relinquished in proportion to the right relinquished or value of all the properties or claims of which right is relinquished in proportion to the right relinquished or consideration for the release, whichever is higher, subject to a minimum of rupees 1000.
(b) Release deeds executed by 0.1 per cent of the commercial banks in amount set forth in the respect of agriculture instrument subject to a loans, educational loans maximum of Rupees and other loans. One thousand.
(c) in any other case The same duty as a conveyance(No.21 or 22 as the case may be) for such amount or value of the property or claim or fair value of the land
