Madras High Court
The Sub Registrar vs Dr.Usha Dorairajan on 4 June, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
2024:MHC:2211
W.A.No.544 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.06.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.A.No.544 of 2021
The Sub Registrar,
In the cadre of District Registrar,
Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040. ... Appellant
Vs.
Dr.Usha Dorairajan ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order dated 16.03.2009 made in W.P.No.4663 of 2007 passed by the learned
Judge of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.B.Vijay
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.M.Rajendhera Kumar
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.544 of 2021
JUDGMENT
[Judgment was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]
The writ appeal has been instituted challenging the order dated
16.03.2009 made in W.P.No.4663 of 2007.
2. The respondent / Sub Registrar in the writ petition is the appellant
before us. The appellant / Sub Registrar issued a demand notice dated
29.01.2007 asking the respondent herein to pay the stamp duty on the family
Settlement Deed executed by the son, daughter and grandchildren in favour
of the grandparents.
3. As far as the son and daughter are concerned, admittedly, they are
falling within the definition of 'family' under Article 58(a) Explanation.
Therefore, the appellant has demanded deficit stamp duty with reference to
the grandchildren, who executed the Settlement Deed in favour of their
grandparents.
4. As far as the son and daughter are concerned they executed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Settlement Deed in favour of their parent, which did not attract further stamp
duty. Therefore, the demand was restricted only to the grandchildren, who
executed Settlement Deed in favour of their grandparents.
5. The learned Single Judge considered the Explanation to Article
58(a) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and formed an opinion that “family”
includes not only son and daughter but also the grandchildren. Accordingly,
the demand notice was set aside by the Writ Court, which resulted in filing of
the present writ appeal.
6. Mr.B.Vijay, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing
on behalf of the appellant would submit that the scope of the provision has
been expanded by the Writ Court, which is impermissible and thus, the order
passed in the writ petition is liable to be set aside.
7. The Explanation to Article 58(a), which is to be read in its letter and
spirit and expanding its scope by adding the grandchildren would result in
revenue loss to the 'State' and therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge
is perverse and to be set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. Explanation to the Article 58 of the Schedule I to the Indian Stamp
Act is as follows:
“Explanation.- For the purpose of this
Article, the word "family" means father, mother,
husband, wife, son, daughter, grand child, brother
or sister. 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.”
9. The definition of a family mentioned under Article 58 of the
Schedule I to the Indian Stamp Act is exhaustive and not mere illustrative.
The Stamp Act being a fiscal legislation, the Court cannot supply any
purposive interpretation appended to Article 45 of the Schedule 1 of the
Indian Stamp Act. The executants of the document does not fall within the
ambit of the word "family" as defined under the explanation of Article 58 of
the Schedule I to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. The explanation appended to the Article 58 of the Schedule I to the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 clearly indicate that the very explanation is defined
by the Legislature by using the word “means”. Therefore, the use of word
“means” clearly states that the definition is exhaustive and no other meaning
can be assigned to the expression defined in the definition. Though the
learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a judgment of this Court
in the case of S.V.L.S.Ranga Rao Vs. The Secretary to the Government,
Commercial Taxes (J1) Department and others reported in 2009 (2) CTC
800, the said judgment held to be no longer a good law by the Division
Bench of this Court in a judgment reported in 2014 (5) CTC 265 in the case
of T.Muthu Bala Vs. The Inspector General of Registration and another,
wherein, in para 19 of the said judgment, the Division Bench held as follows:
“19. We, therefore, hold that the word
"family" defined in the Explanation to Article 58(a)
of Schedule -I, appended to Indian Stamp Act,
1899, would mean only such of those persons
mentioned in the Explanation. Further, the
definition to the word "family" found in Article
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
58(a) of Schedule-I of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899,
is exhaustive and not illustrative and it is
applicable only to such of those persons indicated
therein and it will not extend to other persons who
do not form part of the definition "family". In the
present case, since the settlement is in favour of
great grandchild (great grand-daughter), the
benefit of Explanation to Article 58(a) of Schedule-
I of the Indian Stamp Act will not be applicable.”
11. With reference to the facts of the case on hand, admittedly the
demand notice was issued by the appellant / Sub Registrar only with
reference to the execution of Settlement Deed by the grandchildren in favour
of their grandparents. Since the grandparents are not falling under the
definition “family” as defined under the Explanation of Article 58(a), the
respondent is not entitled for the relief in the writ petition.
12. The Writ Court has interpreted the Explanation Clause beyond the
scope, which resulted in revenue loss to the 'State'. Thus, we are inclined to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
interfere. Accordingly the order under challenge dated 16.03.2009 passed in
W.P.No.4663 of 2007 is set aside and the Writ Appeal stands allowed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
[S.M.S., J.] [C.K., J.]
04.06.2024
Jeni
Index : Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
Jeni
04.06.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
