##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

* * * *

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.23238 of 2013

DATE: 23.12.2025

Between

Myakala Mallaiah

…Petitioner

AND

The State of Government of Andhra Pradesh

Represented by its Secretary Stamps and Registration and 3

others

…Respondents

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to call

for the records relating to proceedings No.CCRA1/17372/2012

dated 21.06.2013 on the file of the 2^nd respondent confirming the

notice No.5/2011 dated 31.10.2011 issued by the 3^rd respondent

under Section 41A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short, ‘the

Act’) and to quash the same by holding that the registered

document No.6132/2010 dated 06.12.2010 liable for stamp duty

@1% as per G.O.Ms.No.1129 dated13.06.2005 with effect from

01.07.2005 and not 3% as claimed under the notice and

2

consequently, to direct the respondents to refund the excess

amount of Rs.1,75,430/- collected together with interest @12%

per annum.

2.

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner, his wife-

Myakala Mallamma, his son-Myakala Ramakrishna and one

Ganachary Shankaraiah purchased agricultural land admeasuring

Acs.25.32.5 guntas in Sy.Nos.159, 160 and 161 situated at

Vemulawada, under document Nos.1669/1989, 1812/1989 and

607/1990 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar at

Vemulawada; that after the death of Ganachary Shankaraiah, his

wife-G.Vimalamma executed and registered a release deed

releasing her rights over the property through document

No.293/2005 dated 11.02.2005; and that the entire property was

under the joint hindu family and as a kartha, the petitioner and

other family members were under common enjoyment and

executed a Partition Deed, which was registered by the Sub-

Registrar vide document No.6132/2010 dated 06.12.2010.

3.

It is further stated that, subsequently, the petitioner received

2^nd notice dated 31.10.2011 issued by the 3^rd respondent stating

that there is a deficit stamp duty in respect of the said partition

deed amounting to Rs.1,75,430/-; that aggrieved by the said

notice, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2^nd

3

respondent under Section 41-A(3) of the Act; that vide order

dated 21.06.2013, the said appeal is dismissed stating that the

partition deed did not include the name of Myakala Mallamma,

who is said to have been having a joint right in the properties, as

a party to the document, and the remaining parties, who are not

having any joint right in the properties, were made parties to the

document for division of the properties and accordingly, confirmed

the order dated 31.10.2011 passed by the 3^rd respondent.

4.

Petitioner also contended that Section 2(15) of the Act defines

‘instrument of partition’ and it is well settled law that in respect of

the joint family properties, the properties need not stand in the

name of all joint family members and that the registering

authorities have to see the nature of the document as per the

recitals contained thereon and they cannot go beyond the

transaction under the document.

5.

It is further submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.1129 dated

13.06.2025, the instrument of partition is liable to stamp duty and

hence, the order of the 2^nd respondent dated 21.06.2013

confirming the notice of the 3^rd respondent dated 31.10.2011 is

illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act and are liable to

be quashed.

4

6. On behalf of the respondents, the 4^th respondent filed

counter-affidavit denying the averments made in the writ affidavit.

It is stated that during the Audit, vide Notice No.5/1211 dated

31.10.2011 issued under Section 41-A of the Act, the District

Registrar (Audit) found that the document suffered deficit stamp

duty of Rs.1,75,430/- as the property mentioned in the document

was not a joint family property, but property jointly purchased by

specific individuals and therefore the concession under

G.O.Ms.No.1129 dated 13.06.2005 was not applicable.

7.

It is also stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.1129 dated

13.06.2005, the conce