This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the District Registrar, Kottayam. A release deed was executed on 28.4.2014 in favour of the petitioner by brothers of the petitioner, brother of petitioner's father and the legal heirs of the deceased brother of the petitioner's father. Admittedly the property originally belongs to C.L.John. The present co-owners of the property in question are having derivative interest from C.L.John. The present co-owners are children and children of predeceased sons of C.L.John. According to them, they need to pay only stamp duty of Rs.1000/- based on Article 48(a) schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act which reads as follows:
“48.(a) When such release operates in favour of father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, husband, wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, grandchildren or legal
WP(C).No.25509/2014-K.
2 heirs of the deceased children of a person.
One rupee for every rupees 100 or part thereof of the amount of the fair value of other properties or claims of which the right is relinquished in proportion to the right relinquished of the value of all the properties or claims of which the right is relinquished in proportion to the right relinquished or consideration for the release, whichever is higher, subject to a maximum of rupees 1000.”
2. The District Registrar impounded the document on the ground that persons will not come within the ambit of family defined under Schedule 48(a) as amended in the year 2012. In fact, a similar issue has been decided by this Court in State of Kerala v. Jose (2013(3) KLT 412) in respect of the partition under Sl.No.42 of schedule. This Court held that when one brother dies and his legal heir stands in the shoes of the deceased and it can be said that a partition
WP(C).No.25509/2014-K.
3 effected is between a legal heir of a brother and his uncle would come under the ambit of petitioner's family. This Court took the view combination of the persons and permutation of the persons mentioned in Sl.No.42 would attract definition of family. Thus holding that party is entitled for concession of stamp duty payable. I am of the view in the light of the decision of the Division Bench in Jose's case supra, the issue is covered in favour of the petitioner. The same dictum would apply for Sl.No.48(a) in regard to release deed as well. Accordingly, Ext.P4 is set aside. There shall be a direction to the respondents to release the document to the petitioner within a period of ten days. If any excess registration fee collected from the petitioner, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of six weeks.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, (Judge)
Kvs/-
// true copy //