O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st Respondent ending with the order dated 02.06.2015 in proceedings No.58102/P1/2014 and quash para 20 (a) regarding deficit stamp duty in respect of settlement in favour of non- family member falling under Article 58 (a) (ii) of the Indian Stamp Act,

1899, as stated in para 12 of the said order dated 02.06.2015 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to accept the stamp duty already paid in respect of the partition deed dated 19.10.2011, registered as Document No.3719 of 2011 on the file of SRO, Anna

Nagar.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the persons in whose favour the earlier settlement deeds are executed, are not parties to this deed in question and a person who does not have any right over the property, executed a ratification deed in respect of the instruments already executed by the real owner and, no new right could be conveyed, and therefore, the question of payment of the stamp duty for such ratification/concerned deed, does not arise.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the property(ties) mentioned in the deed not at all belong to the partnership firm. In fact, they are all self-acquired properties of the individual. Therefore, the settlement is chargeable to “duty”, as the one executed in favour of the family members and therefore, there is no need to demand the stamp duty in favour of non family members. Even during the course of personal hearing, the petitioners have explained that originally, the properties belonged to the partnership firm, namely M/s.Sri Devi Brick Works consisting of two partners, by name L.K.Jayasekar and L.K.Baburaj. They entered into a partnership in the year 1975. Subsequently. in the year of 1982, L.K.Jayasekar retired from the partnership firm and he relinquished 50 % of the property in favour of the other partner L.K.Baburaj. Therefore, the said L.K.Baburaj is entitled to entire property. Therefore, the subsequent L.K.Baburaj has executed the properties in favour of his wife and sons. Hence, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is perverse in natrue.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners are challenging the impugned order dated 02.06.2015 passed by the 1st respondent, and pending the writ petition, the 2nd respondent had passed another order dated 20.12.2016 and therefore, separate writ petition in W.P.No.8803 of 2017 was filed and there, three types of orders were passed, whereas, as per the schedules “B” and “E” are concerned, they accepted and are ready to pay the “stamp duty”. As far as the schedule “A” is concerned, they are challenging the same.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, now the main contention of the petitioners is that the parties have disputed the document and it is only among the family members. Though L.K.Jayasekar and L.K.Baburaj were partners and the properties were purchased in the year 1975 in the name of the partnership firm M/s.Devi Brick Works, subsequently, the said L.K.Jayasekar retired from the partnership firm and when there were two partners, one of the partner retired, and automatically the partnership firm will be dissolved. Since, only two partners were in the partnership firm, to continue the partnership firm, two partners should be there, whereas the partnership itself was formed with two partners and, one of the partners retired from the partnership, and therefore, automatically the partnership would get dissolved. One of the partners, namely L.K.Jayasekar had relinquished the right in the partnership property in favour of the other partners viz., L.K.Baburaj who is the absolute owner of the property. Therefore, now only, the said L.K.Baburaj executed a settlement deed in favour of his wife and children and the partnership deed was als