Subscribe to BCA Journal Know More

May 2008

Stamp duty : Cousins not being members of the family do not fall with definition of word ‘family’ under Stamp Act : S. 45(a).

By Dr. K. Shivaram, Ajay R. Singh, Advocates
Reading Time 2 mins

New Page 1

9 Stamp duty : Cousins not being members of
the family do not fall with definition of word ‘family’ under Stamp Act : S.
45(a).


The respondents herein are the sons of two brothers. They
entered into a deed of partition in respect of certain properties and presented
the same for registration. The respondents paid the fixed stamp duty as per
Article 45(a) of the Act. The District Registrar did not agree with the stamp
duty and held the said document as a pending document.

 

On appeal for release of documents, the Madras High Court
observed that the document presented for registration though titled as partition
deed was not actually a partition deed between two blood brothers. The
respondents were first cousins and the document was one falling under Article
45(b) of the Act. The word ‘family’ means as defined under Article 58 and reads
as under :

“Father, mother, husband, wife, son, daughter, grandchild.
In the case of any one whose personal law permits adoption, ‘father’ shall
include an adoptive father, ‘mother’ an adoptive mother, ‘son’ an adopted son
and ‘daughter’ an adopted daughter.”

 


Thus, it is seen that the word, ‘family’ is given a
restrictive meaning in its application to Article 58 and the same meaning is
imported to the word ‘family’ appearing in Article 45 of the Act. Consequently,
the respondents would be entitled to claim the benefit of concessional rate of
stamp duty under Article 45(a) only if both of them are members of a family,
within the meaning of the definition of the word, ‘family’ under Article 45(a).
Therefore, prima facie, the objection raised by the appellants i.e.,
District Registrar with regard to the nature of the document is well founded.
Under such circumstances, it was not possible to order the release of the
documents.

[ District Registrar, Tindivanam and Anr. v. V.
Ranganathan & Anr.,
AIR 2008 Mad 73.]

 


You May Also Like