S.V.L.S. Ranga Rao v. Secretary To The Government, Madras High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

W.P No. 23263 of 2008 and M.P Nos. 1 and 2 of 2008

Attorney(S)

Mr. V. Srinivasa Babu, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. L.S.M Hasan Fizal, Government Advocate for Respondents.

Judges

K. Venkataraman, J.

Acts

Article 58 of Schedule-I of the Indian Stamp (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act 31 of 2004,
Article 58 Schedule-I of the Indian Stamp (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act 31 of 2004,
Article 58 of Schedule-I of Indian Stamp (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act 31 of 2004
Article 58 Schedule-I of the India Stamp (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 31 of 2004
Article 58 of Schedule-I of Indian Stamp (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act 31
SECTION 47 STAMP ACT
Rent Control) Act, 1960, (Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960),
SECTION 31 INDIAN STAMP ACT
Section 40(1)(b) of the Stamp Act
Section 49(1)(b) of the Stamp Act.
SECTION 41 STAMP ACT
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT 1956

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner challenged an order dated 07.08.2008 issued by the second respondent (a District Registrar) which directed the petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty and deficit registration fees in relation to a deed of release dated 13.11.2007. That deed was executed by the petitioner’s stepmother, Samarla Manjula, releasing her 5/32nd undivided share in certain properties in favour of the petitioner and his brother. The stepmother had earlier been allotted that share in a partition compromise (O.S. No. 19 of 1997). The deed was presented for registration and stamp duty was paid “as per Article 58 Schedule-I of the India Stamp (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 31 of 2004” along with Rs. 2,000 registration fees, but the second respondent kept the document pending and withheld it without reference to the Collector under Sections 31 and 47-A of the Stamp Act. A notice dated 02.08.2008 called upon the petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty and deficit registration fees; W.P. No. 21625 of 2008 was filed challenging that notice but was later withdrawn with liberty to challenge the final order dated 07.08.2008. The petitioner filed the present writ petition by consent, seeking a direction that the deed be treated as a transaction between family members under Article 58 of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act 31 of 2004 and for release of the document without insisting on payment of deficit duties or fees.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the deed of release executed by the petitioner’s stepmother in favour of the petitioner and his brother qualifies as a transaction between family members under Article 58 of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 31 of 2004, thereby obviating any deficit stamp duty/registration fee demand.
Whether the second respondent (District Registrar) had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order under Section 40(1)(b) of the Indian Stamp Act directing payment of deficit stamp duty and registration fees, rather than referring the matter to the Collector under Section 31 (and related provisions) for adjudication.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The second respondent ought to have referred the document to the Collector for adjudication pursuant to Section 31 of the Indian Stamp Act; the Collector would examine and (if appropriate) impound and pass final orders (Sections 33 and 49(1)(b)). The registrar therefore lacked jurisdiction to pass the impugned order directing payment of deficit duties and fees.
The Registrar’s practice (as reflected in this Court’s decision in The District Collector, Erode v. M. Ponnusamy, 2001 (2) CTC 449 : 2001 (2) MLJ 458) is to register and hand over submitted documents and, if deficit stamp duty exists, to make an endorsement and refer the matter under Section 41-A; the second respondent should have followed that approach.
Under the Explanation to Article 58 of Schedule I of the Act, the term “mother” includes stepmother; accordingly, the stepmother should be treated as a family member and the deed should be classified as a family transaction exempting it from deficit duty demands.

Respondents' Arguments

The second respondent, acting as District Registrar, is empowered by Section 40(1)(b) of the Stamp Act to pass orders directing parties to pay deficit stamp duty and deficit registration fees; the registrar therefore had jurisdiction to make the impugned order.
The Explanation to Article 58 lists specific family members (father, mother, husband, wife, son, daughter, grandchild, adoptive father, adoptive mother, adopted son and adopted daughter) and, by a government letter of 10.08.2006, brothers and sisters were included; this list must be read strictly and stepmother is not included, so the deed cannot be treated as a family transaction exempt from deficit duties.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
The District Collector, Erode District, Erode v. M. Ponnusamy, 2001 (2) CTC 449 : 2001 (2) MLJ 458	That documents submitted for registration should be registered and handed over, and if deficit stamp duty is payable the matter should be referred under Section 41-A by making an endorsement in the document.	The petitioner relied on this authority to contend that the registrar should not withhold the document and should have referred the matter. The Court noted this submission among the petitioner's contentions when evaluating the registrar's actions, although the Court's primary reliance was on statutory interpretation of Article 58 and related principles.
Madhurani Gupta v. Shairu Bux Damani, 1991 (2) LW 692	That the word "family" is flexible in meaning; in the context of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, the daughter-in-law was held to be a member of the family, illustrating that statutory lists may be illustrative rather than exhaustive.	The Court invoked this authority and the flexibility illustrated therein to support the view that the Explanation to Article 58 should not be treated as an exhaustive list and that persons outside the express list (such as a stepmother) can be regarded as family members depending on context.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by setting out and accepting a series of undisputed facts about family relationships, the partition compromise, execution of the deed of release by the stepmother and the registrar's notice and subsequent order dated 07.08.2008 under Section 40(1)(b) of the Stamp Act.

Central to the analysis was the meaning of "family" in the Explanation to Article 58 of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 31 of 2004. The Court examined competing approaches: the respondents' contention that the Explanation provides a strict, exhaustive list of family members, and the petitioner's contention that the Explanation is illustrative and that a stepmother falls within the notion of family—especially given that "mother" is expressly said to include adoptive mother and that adoptive relationships are treated as family members.

The Court rejected the respondents' insistence on a strict, exhaustive construction of the Explanation. It reasoned that the Explanation is illustrative rather than exhaustive and that statutory lists of family members are often construed flexibly depending on context. To support this interpretive posture, the Court relied on (a) the approach taken under Section 2(6-A) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and the decision in Madhurani Gupta v. Shairu Bux Damani which demonstrated that the term "family" has flexibility of meaning; and (b) the fact that a stepmother is a Class I heir under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, placing her on par with a mother for succession purposes.

On that basis the Court concluded it would be neither logical nor legally sound to exclude a stepmother from the class of family members for the purposes of Article 58. Because the stepmother can properly be regarded as a family member, the deed executed by her in favour of her stepchildren fell within the scope of a family transaction under Article 58.

The Court therefore found it unnecessary to decide other contentions pressed by the petitioner. While the petitioner had argued procedural irregularities in the registrar's handling (e.g., referral to the Collector), the Court's disposition turned on its construction of "family" under Article 58 and the consequent classification of the deed as a family transaction.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSITION: The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of the second respondent dated 07.08.2008 is set aside.

Direct Effect on the Parties: The respondents are directed to treat the deed of release dated 13.11.2007 executed by the petitioner’s stepmother in favour of the petitioner and his brother as a transaction between family members under Article 58 of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 31 of 2004. The second respondent is ordered to release and return the document to the petitioner (if otherwise in order) without insisting upon payment of any deficit stamp duty or deficit registration fees, within two weeks from receipt of a copy of the order. There is no order as to costs and connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

The opinion does not state that it is creating a binding precedent beyond the parties; its stated relief is the direct effect described above.

Show full summary ...

S.V.L.S. Ranga Rao v. Secretary To The Government

1. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition challenging the proceedings of the second respondent dated 07.08.2008 with a further direction directing the respondents to treat the deed of release executed by his stepmother in his favour and his brother dated 13.11.2007 to be classified as transaction between the family members as per Article 58 of Schedule-I of Indian Stamp (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act 31 of 2004.

3. The short facts which are necessary for the disposal of the Writ Petition, are set out here under:

3.1 The property bearing No. 58.A, Block No. 109, T.S No. 4816, R.S No. 41 Part, in T. Nagar Village, measuring an extent of 9 Grounds and 964 sq.ft along with immovable properties at various places in Andhra Pradesh were acquired by the petitioner's grandfather late S.V Ranga Rao, who died intestate on 18.07.1974 leaving behind his wife Samarla Leelavathi and his only son Koteswara Rao to inherit his properties. During the life time of Samarla Leelavathi, she had executed a Will dated 15.11.1999 in respect of her 5/8th share and she died 25.04.2000 On her death, Koteswara Rao, the father of the petitioner and his children, viz., the petitioner, the other son and daughter acquired their rights in the properties. After the death of the petitioner's mother S. Vijayalakshmi, his father married one Samarla Manjula in the year 1988 and thereafter, the said Koteswara Rao died intestate on 18.07.1989 leaving behind his stepmother Samarla Manjula and his two sons viz., the petitioner and one S.V Ranga Rao and daughter Adimulam Lakshmi Priya to inherit his undivided shares.

3.2 The stepmother Samarla Manjula filed a Suit for partition for allotment of 5/32nd share of various properties acquired by Koteswara Rao in O.S No. 19 of 1997 before the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Eluru, which ended in a compromise, wherein, she was allotted 5/32nd share in 9 Grounds and 964 sq.ft approximately 1-1/2 Grounds at New No. 58.A, Block No. 109, T.S No. 4816, R.S No. 41 Part in T. Nagar Village apart from other properties.

3.3 The stepmother Samarla Manjula had no issues and out of love and affection, she had executed a deed of release, releasing her right, title and interest over her undivided 5/32nd share in the property referred to above in favour of the petitioner and his brother on 13.11.2007 before the second respondent office. The stamp duty had been paid as per Article 58 Schedule-I of the India Stamp (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 31 of 2004 apart from a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as registration fees.

3.4 The second respondent has kept the said deed as pending document and withholds the same without referring it to the Collector for adjudication under Section 31 and Section 47-A of the Stamp Act.

3.5 On 02.08.2008, the second respondent issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty together with deficit registration fees. The said notice was received by him only on 09.08.2008 Challenging the said notice, the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition in W.P No. 21625 of 2008 before this Court. However, in the meantime, the second respondent has passed the impugned order dated 07.08.2008 under Section 40(1)(b) of the Stamp Act calling upon him to pay the deficit stamp duty. Hence, the petitioner has withdrawn the Writ Petition in W.P No. 21625 of 2008 with liberty to challenge the final order dated 07.08.2008

3.6 As per Article 58 Schedule-I of the Indian Stamp (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act 31 of 2004, ‘mother’ shall include not only adoptive mother, but also stepmother. While so, the second respondent without considering the same, had directed the petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty together with deficit registration fees by the impugned order dated 07.08.2008 Hence, the petitioner has to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition challenging the said order.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly contend that —

(i) the second respondent ought to have referred the matter for adjudication before the Collector as contemplated under Section 31 of the Indian Stamp Act. The Collector thereupon shall examine and enquire for impounding such document under Section 33 and shall pass final orders under Section 49(1)(b) of the Stamp Act. In the case of hand, the second respondent has passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty as well as registration fees. Thus, the impugned order had been passed by the second respondent, who has no jurisdiction to do so;

(ii) the second respondent has no manner of right to keep the document with him without releasing the same even though general directions have been given by this Court in a judgment reported in The District Collector, Erode District, Erode v. M. Ponnusamy, 2001 (2) CTC 449 : 2001 (2) MLJ 458, wherein it has been specifically held that the documents which have been submitted, have to be registered and handed over to the concerned person and if any deficit stamp duty has to be payable, the matter has to be referred under Section 41-A of the Stamp Act by making an endorsement in the said document to that effect.

5. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that the second respondent who has acted as a District Registrar, is empowered to pass orders directing the parties to pay the deficit stamp duty and deficit registration fees as contemplated under Section 40(1)(b) of the Stamp Act. The notification to the effect would indicate that it is not correct to state that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to do so. As per Explanation to Article 58 of Schedule-I of the Indian Stamp (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act 31 of 2004, father, mother, husband, wife, son, daughter, grandchild, adoptive father, adoptive mother, adopted son and adopted daughter have been included as family members. Further, by the letter of the first respondent dated 10.08.2006, brothers and sisters have also been included as family members. While so, the document in question had been executed by the stepmother in favour of the petitioner and his brother and the same cannot be considered as an execution by the family members and hence, the deficit stamp duty and registration fees as required, have to be paid by the petitioner.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

7. The facts which are not disputed are that —

(i) the petitioner's grandfather one S.V Ranga Rao died intestate on 18.07.1974 leaving behind his wife Samarla Leelavathi and only son Koteswaran as his legal heirs;

(ii) Samarla Leelavathi had executed a Will dated 15.11.1999 in respect of her 5/8th share and she died on 25.04.2000 On her death, the petitioner's father, the petitioner, his brother and sister acquired the properties;

(iii) after the demise of the petitioner's mother S. Vijayalakshmi, his father married one Samarla Manjula in the year 1988;

(iv) the petitioner's father Koteswaran died on 18.07.1989 intestate leaving behind Samarla Manjula, the petitioner, his brother and his sister to inherit the common undivided shares;

(v) Samarla Manjula filed a Suit for partition for allotment of her shares over the immovable properties before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge at Eluru in O.S No. 19 of 2007 which ended in a compromise wherein she was allotted 5/32nd share in the property, which is subject matter in this Writ Petition;

(vi) Samarla Manjula had executed a deed of release releasing her right over the said properties in favour of the petitioner and his brother;

(vii) notice was issued by the second respondent dated 02.01.2008, to pay the deficit stamp duty as well as deficit registration fees;

(viii) against the demand notice dated 02.01.2008, the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition in W.P No. 21625 of 2008;

(ix) in the meanwhile, the second respondent had passed the impugned order dated 07.08.2008 under Section 40(1)(b) of the Stamp Act calling upon the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty together with deficit registration fees;

(x) in view of passing of the impugned order, W.P No. 21625 of 2008 was withdrawn with liberty to challenge the final order.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that as per Explanation to Article 58 of Schedule-I of the Indian Stamp (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act 31 of 2004 (herein after referred to as Act), the word “family” shall include the stepmother also. According to the learned counsel, though father, mother, husband, wife, son, daughter, grandchild, adoptive father, adoptive mother, adopted son and adopted daughter alone were named as family members in the explanation to the said Article and later by the Government letter dated 10.08.2006 brothers and sisters were included as family members, it is not an illustrative one and exhaustive one thereby a strict appliance to be made. Further more, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, when adoptive mother could be considered as a family member, equally, the stepmother should also be considered as a family member.

9. However, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would contend that a strict meaning should be taken for the word ‘family’ and Explanation to Article 58 of Schedule I of the said Act gives the list of persons who could be called as ‘family members’. Since the stepmother is not one of the categories as defined in the explanation for the word ‘family’, the petitioner has to pay the deficit stamp duty for the document executed by the stepmother in favour of the petitioner and his brother.

10. However, I am unable to accept the contentions of the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. Though Explanation to Article 58 of Schedule I of the said Act defines the persons coming under the word ‘family’, it could be said that it is only an illustration and not an exhaustive one. Therefore, strict meaning cannot be construed so as to include only those persons who have been named as ‘family members’. Further more, when adoptive mother and adoptive father could be included as members of the family, it is neither legal nor logic to say that the stepmother could not be construed as a family member.

11. In the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, (Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960), members of the family in relation to the landlord is defined under Section 2(6-A) of the said Act. There, it is stated that the members of the family of the landlord means his spouse, son, daughter, grandchild or dependent parent. The question whether the daughter in law would be construed as a member of the family arose before this Court in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1647, 1648, 1650 and 1651 of 1990. It has been answered by this Court in the said revisions that the daughter-in-law could also be construed as a family member and the same is reported in Madhurani Gupta v. Shairu Bux Damani, 1991 (2) LW 692. Considering the various pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court, it has been held thereon that the word ‘family’ is one of the great flexibility; sometimes the word ‘family’ in a broad sense would mean all those who are connected by blood relationship or marriage and therefore, are to be considered as belonging to the family. Thus, in Section 2(6-A) of the said Act, member of the family of a landlord has been defined to include spouse, son, daughter, grandchild or dependent parent and the daughter-in-law was also considered as a family member. Thus, the said illustration given thereunder may not be construed strictly. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the given case on hand, excluding the stepmother that she is not a family member could be farfetching. The object of the legislation and the intent in which the word used are relevant.

12. Stepmother is one of the Class I heirs as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and she is a family member on par with the mother. This position cannot be disputed by the respondents. When stepmother could be classified as Class I heir as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956, there may not be any reason in excluding her for the purpose of explanation to Article 58 of Schedule I of the said Act while construing who are all the members of the family. As stated already, the illustration given thereon in the explanation to Article 58 of Schedule I of the said Act cannot be an exhaustive one so as to exclude the other persons even though they could be construed as family members.

13. In view of the reasons stated above, the other contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner may not be necessary to be considered in this Writ Petition.

14. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order of the second respondent dated 07.08.2008 and the Writ Petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the deed of release executed by the stepmother of the petitioner in favour of the petitioner and his brother dated 13.11.2007 to be classified as transaction between the family members as per Article 58 of Schedule-I of Indian Stamp (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act 31 of 2004 and release the document in favour of the petitioner without insisting for the payment of deficit stamp duty and the deficit registration fees. The second respondent is directed to return the document to the petitioner, if it is otherwise in order, without insisting for the deficit stamp duty and deficit registration fees, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

S.V.L.S. Ranga Rao v. Secretary To The Government

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

Respondents' Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

S.V.L.S. Ranga Rao v. Secretary To The Government

Comments