HALEEMA BEEVI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The true stamp duty payable on a partition deed claimed to be executed by the family members, is the issue raised in this writ petition. The executants are the petitioners herein. The first petitioner is the mother of late Shri Mohamed Asharaf and fourth petitioner is his widow. Petitioners 2 and 3 are the children of deceased Asharaf and the fourth petitioner. Thus, the first petitioner is the grandmother of petitioners 2 and 3. It is pointed out that the deceased died intestate and all the petitioners alone are the legal heirs. The copy of the partition deed is produced as Ext.Pl. The said partition deed was registered by the Sub-Registrar, but was impounded after collecting 2% of the market value of the property and on a representation by the petitioners, it was informed by the third respondent that only the fee prescribed under Article 42(i) is liable to be remitted for a partition deed. The petitioners claimed refund of the amount collected, by pointing out that only Rs. 1,000/- be paid as stamp duty and the registration fee is only 1%. In reply, the District Registrar informed them by Ext.P5 that the executants of the partition deed will not come within the term 'family' under Article 42(i) and therefore the document can be treated only as one under Article 42(H) for stamp duty. Therefore, a total amount of Rs.4,10,000/- will have to be remitted towards stamp duty and penalty.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the deceased has left the petitioners as his legal heirs. All the executants will come within the definition of 'family' under Explanation to Article 42(i) of the Act. The "mother" and "father" are specifically included in the Explanation and therefore the first petitioner is covered by the main body of the Explanation and it is submitted that the plea raised by the respondents has no merit.