M SUSEELAMMA Vs. CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the order made by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai, 1st respondent herein, in the appeal petition in Pa. Ma. No. 2150/P1/2004, dated 26 -12 -2006, and the subsequent demand by the Sub -Registrar (District Registrar Cadre), Chennai, 2nd respondent herein, made in I. No. 8 of 2003, D/ - 7 -9 -2007, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed.

(2.) WIFE , sons and daughters of Late Krishnaiah Chetty, have filed this appeal. A Deed, dated 9 -10 -2003, has been executed by the 1st respondent along her sons and daughters, respondents 2 to 6, in favour of the 7th respondent and his three minor sons, and the said document has been presented in the Office of the Sub -Registrar, District Registrar Cadre, Sowcarpet, Chennai. The document has been kept pending under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as it was not duly stamped. The Sub -Registrar, (District Registrar Cadre), Chennai, 2nd respondent herein, after giving notice to the appellants, treated the document in question, as ''conveyance '', chargeable under Art. 23 of Schedule 1 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, on the ground that the releasees 2 to 4 do not have any pre -existing right over the property. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred a revision petition before the 1st respondent under Section 56(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. After considering the case of the appellants, the said authority, vide orders in D. Dis. No. 2150/P1/2004, dated 26 -12 -2006, treated the document in question, as the one, comprising of dual nature, viz., 'Release ' chargeable under Art. 55A with regard to 21.43% of Undivided share of the property and the rest of 64.29% undivided share as 'Gift ' chargeable under Article 33 of Schedule -1 to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, on the ground that 2nd, 3rd and 4th releasees do not have any pre -existing right over the property. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) PLACING reliance on a decision made in Balwant Kaur v. State of Uttar Pradesh, re - ported in 1984 All LJ 305 : (AIR 1984 All 107), the appellants have submitted that the 1st respondent ought to have seen that when a co -owner executes a Deed of Release in favour of other co -owners, it cannot be construed as ''conveyance ''. According to him, the essential difference between a ''Conveyance '' and a ''Release Deed '', lies in the fact that in the latter, there is no transfer of an interest or right to enter, who had pre -existing rights. A release of a right or a claim can only be in favour of a person, or a claim can only be in favour of a person who had that pre -existing right or a claim and by reason of the release, the latter 's right is enlarged,