ECONOMIST COMMUNICATIONS LTD Vs. CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed against the impugned order of the first respondent dated 13-11-1998 by which the first respondent has confirmed the order of the second respondent dated 16-07-1997 stating that the valuation of the document produced by the petitioner for registration before the second respondent should be on the basis that it is a conveyance and not a release deed.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case is as follows: An industrial shed S-15 was purchased by the petitioner which was a partnership firm under a sale deed dated 15-02-1990. THE petitioner was inducted as the 8th partner in the Economist Press. THE partnership firm " Economist Press was dissolved on 01-09-1994 and as per the terms and conditions, the assets and liabilities of the Economist Press were taken over by the petitioner who was inducted as the eighth partner in the Economist Press as stated above. Consequent to the dissolution of the partnership firm, the other 7 partners have executed deed of release in favour of the petitioner on 07-02-1995 and fixed the stamp as a release deed. However, the second respondent, Sub-Registrar has passed an order on 19-06-1995 holding that the release deed should be treated as conveyance and therefore, charged 13% stamp duty on the said document and also charged penalty. THE document which was registered as pending No.135 of 1995 was impounded by the second respondent. As against the order of the second respondent dated 19-06-1995, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the first respondent, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority as per Section 56(1) of the Indian Stamp Act. However, the first respondent has confirmed the order of the second respondent holding that the document should be treated as conveyance. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed on various grounds stating that the deed of release by the seven erstwhile partners was pursuant to the dissolution of the partnership deed dated 15-04-1994; that a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1355 of 1993, in a similar circumstance has decided that in such circumstances, the documents cannot be treated as a conveyance; that by virtue of the dissolution of the partnership by which one of the partners has been given the property and therefore, the release by other partners cannot be treated as a transfer intervivos as per Section 2(10) of the Indian Stamp Act apart from many other grounds.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties and perused the records available. A perusal of the deed of dissolution dated 01-09-1994 in which all the eight partners of Economist Press, the erstwhile partnership firm constituted under the partnership deed dated 15-06-1994, came to be dissolved with following clause, "The immovable property being factory Land & Building situated at S.No.36 Part 54 Part 75 Part (Block No.6, Alandur) bearing Shed No.S-15 of the extent of 8026 Sq.ft. is to be held and owned by the 8th partner in the scheme of dissolution aforesaid." It was consequent to the said contents of the Dissolution deed the other seven partners have executed deed of release in favour of the writ petitioner in February 1995. The Dissolution deed also makes it clear that the writ petitioner is a Public Limited Company registered under the Indian Companies Act and therefore is a legal person.