Madras High Court
V.R.Chandana vs Inspector General Of Registration on 11 September, 2024
2024:MHC:3379
W.P.No.20483 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
W.P.No.20483 of 2024
and W.M.P.No.22435 of 2024
V.R.Chandana ... Petitioner
vs.
1.Inspector General of Registration
100, Santhome High Road,
Pattinappakam,
Chennai-600 028.
2.The Assistant Inspector General of Registration/
District Registrar (Administration),
Chennai South District,
Integrated Building For Offices
of the Commercial Taxes and
Registration Department, Fanepet,
Nandhanam, Chennai – 600035.
3.The Sub Registrar
The Registration Office of Kundrathur
Chennai-600 069. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the impugned
order Refusal Check Slip No.RFL/Kundrathur/7/2024 dated 23.01.2024
1/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20483 of 2024
issued by the 3rd respondent in a settlement deed executed by petitioner to
and in favour of her grandmother R.V.Meera and quash the same and direct
the 3rd respondent to register the Settlement Deed dated 23.01.2024 executed
by the Petitioner herein under Article 58(a) of the Indian Stamp Act with
concessional stamp duty and registration fees.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Manisekaran
For R1 to R3 : Mr.B.Vijay
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
Aggrieved by the Refusal Check Slip issued by the 3rd respondent
refusing registration of the Settlement Deed executed by petitioner in favour
of her paternal grandmother on the ground that it was liable to Stamp Duty
under Article 58(a)(ii)-A of Schedule-I to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the
petitioner has come by way of this writ petition.
2. According to the petitioner, the subject property was originally
purchased by paternal grandfather of petitioner-R.Venkataswamy. The
petitioner's father-R.V.Ravikumar predeceased his father R.Venkataswamy.
After death of R.Venkataswamy, the petitioner and her mother succeeded to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
a share in the subject property representing the estate of her deceased father.
Later, the petitioner's mother executed a Settlement Deed in favour of the
petitioner in respect of her share. Thus, the petitioner claims 1/6th undivided
share in the subject property. Out of love and affection towards her
grandmother namely R.V.Meera, wife of above said R.Venkataswamy, the
petitioner executed a Settlement Deed on 23.01.2024 and presented the same
for registration before the 3rd respondent. The petitioner treating the same as
a Settlement Deed executed in favour of a family member affixed
concessional stamp duty under Article 58(a)(i) of Schedule-I to the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899. The 3rd respondent/Sub Registrar refused to register the
same on the ground that Settlement Deed is liable for higher stamp duty
under Article 58(a)(ii)-A and directed the petitioner to pay 7% towards
stamp duty on the instrument and 2% on the registration charges. Aggrieved
by the said refusal check slip issued by 3rd respondent, the petitioner has
come by way of this writ petition.
3. Mr.V.Manisekaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by
taking this Court to the explanation to Article 58(a)(i) of Schedule-I to the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 submitted that a Settlement Deed in favour of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
grandchild is chargeable with concessional stamp duty and hence, even
though the word grandparents is not specifically included in the explanation,
the Settlement Deed executed by grandchild in favour of grandparents
should also be chargeable with concessional stamp duty. In support of the
said contention, the learned counsel relied on the following judgments:-
(i) R.Santhosh vs. Inspector General of Registration (hereinafter referred
to as Santhosh-I case) in W.P.No.29811 of 2013, dated 25.08.2014 as
confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Inspector General of
Registration and Chief Revenue Controlling Authority vs.
R.Santhosh (hereinafter referred to as Santhosh-II case) in W.A.No.85
of 2015, dated 23.10.2017.
(ii) K.Thilak Kumar vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and
Inspector General of Registration in W.P.No.12233 of 2008, dated
06.03.2013.
(iii) Manish Mohan Sharma vs. Ram Bahadur Thakur Ltd., reported in
AIR 2006 SC 1690.
4. Per contra, Mr.B.Vijay, learned Additional Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appearing for the respondents submitted that concessional stamp duty as
provided under Article 58(a)(i) of Schedule-I to the Indian Stamp Act, is
applicable only for the settlements executed in favour of member of family
as explained in explanation to the said Article and the said concessional
stamp duty cannot be extended to settlements in favour of other members of
the family as understood in common parlance.
5. In this regard, the learned Additional Government Pleader
submitted that Indian Stamp Act being a fiscal statute shall be interpreted
strictly and Court cannot extend the meaning of the word 'Family' by
supplementing the words not included in the statute. In support of his
contention, the learned Additional Government Pleader relied on the
following judgments:-
(i) T.Muthu Balu vs. The Inspector General of Registration reported in
2014 (5) CTC 265.
(ii) K.S.Ravichandran vs. Inspector General of Registration-cum-Chief
Revenue Controlling Officer in W.P.No.20561 of 2007, dated
04.01.2013.
(iii) J.Chelladurai and another vs. The District Registrar and another in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.436 of 2011 dated 14.10.2014.
(iv) The Sub Registrar vs. Dr.Usha Dorairajan in W.A.No.544 of 2021
dated 04.06.2024.
(v) Kiran Govindarajulu Rajkumar vs. The Inspector General of
Registration in W.P.No.14252 of 2022 dated 20.06.2024.
6. Article 58(a)(i) of Schedule-I to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, which
imposes concessional stamp duty on the Settlement Deeds executed in
favour of member of family reads as follows:-
58. Settlement-
(a) instrument of (including a deed of
a dower)-
(i) If the Instrument of settlement [One rupee for
is in favour of a member or every Rs.100 or
members of a family; part thereof of
the market value
of the property
which is under
[settlement:]]
Provided, that where an agreement to settle is stamped
with the stamp required for an instrument of settlement and an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
instrument of settlement in pursuance of such agreement is
subsequently executed, the duty on such instrument shall not
exceed [twenty rupees].
Explanation.-
For the purpose of this Article, the word “family” means
father, mother, husband, wife, son, daughter, [grandchild,
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.
7. A reading of above provision would make it clear that concessional
stamp duty is available only for the Settlement Deeds executed in favour of
member or members of a family. Therefore, the definition of word 'family'
assumes significance. The word family was explained by the statute itself as
extracted above. It is the contention of respondents that if the explanation in
the statute is interpreted in its strict sense, Settlement Deed executed in
favour of relationships mentioned therein alone can avail concessional stamp
duty and any settlement in favour of relations not specifically mentioned in
the explanation cannot be treated as settlement in favour of member of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
family within the meaning of said Article.
8. Since the relationship of “grandparents” is not specifically
mentioned in explanation available in the statute, the respondent held
concessional stamp duty is not available to the Settlement Deed executed by
petitioner in favour of her grandmother and as a consequence, it shall be
treated as a Settlement Deed executed in favour of an outsider.
9. A learned Judge of this Court while considering this question in
R.Santhosh vs. Inspector General of Registration (Santhosh-I case) in
W.P.No.29811 of 2013, dated 25.08.2014, observed as follows:-
“11. If grandchild is included within the definition of the
expression “family”, I do not know how a grandmother or
grandfather will stand excluded. There can be no quarrel about
the proposition that if person executes settlement in favour of
his grandchild, the case will be covered by Article 58(a). But to
hold that the converse cannot be accepted, would militate
against the very purpose of the provision. A settlement need not
flow in a hierarchal fashion from the elders to the younger
ones. It can also flow in the reverse direction. If a gift in favour
of a grandchild is covered by Article 58(a), the gift in favour of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the grandparent should be equally covered as a corollary.
Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is
set aside. The respondents are directed to register the sale deed
by treating as one filing under Article 58(a). No costs.
Consequently, MP.Nos.1 of 2013 and 1 of 2014 are closed.”
10. The order passed in the above case was challenged in W.A.No.85
of 2015 and the view of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by the
learned Division Bench in Inspector General of Registration and Chief
Revenue Controlling Authority vs. R.Santhosh (Santhosh-II case), the
Division Bench observed as follows:-
“13. The short point involved in this appeal is as to
whether the maternal grandmother comes under the family as
given in the explanation, the learned single judge has
elaborately discussed in this aspect. K.Rukumani/Settlee is the
maternal grandmother to R.Santhosh and R.Kaushik/Settlors
who are parties to the settlement deed. Therefore, the
authorities cited by the learned counsel for the appellants are
not applicable to the present case on hands. Since, the learned
single judge distinguished the authorities cited by the learned
counsel for the appellants. We need not once again discuss the
authorities elaborately.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14. Considering the discussions held above, we are of the
view that the learned single judge has correctly dealt with the
issues involved in the case on hand and we feel that there is no
reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single
judge.”
11. Interpretation of Article 58(a)(i) of Schedule-I to the Indian Stamp
Act, 1899, came up for consideration before another Division Bench in
T.Muthu Balu vs. The Inspector General of Registration reported in 2014
(5) CTC 265, wherein the Division Bench held that the definition of the
word 'Family' in the explanation to the relevant Article is exhaustive and not
illustrative and as a consequence, the meaning of the word 'family' cannot be
extended to any other members not mentioned in the explanation. The
relevant observation of the Division Bench reads as follows:-
“13. Considering the import of the word "means" in the
above mentioned decision and the ordinary dictionary meaning
of the word 'exhaustive", as per Concise Oxford English
Dictionary, Tenth Edition, is "fully comprehensive". The
interpretation of the word "means" in the Explanation will be
specific to the members of the family mentioned therein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Therefore, it is very clear that the word "family" is not
illustrative and cannot extend to any other members than those
mentioned. The specific members mentioned in the Explanation
alone will be entitled to the benefit of Explanation to Article
58(a) of Schedule-I of the Indian Stamp Act and none else.
Court will not include a person not specifically included as
member of the family for the purpose of Explanation to Article
58(a) of Schedule-I to the Indian Stamp Act.”
12. In J.Chelladurai and another vs. The District Registrar and
another in W.A.No.436 of 2011, dated 14.10.2014, another Division Bench
of this Court also expressed the view that definition of the word 'Family'
found in Article 58 cannot be given a wider interpretation so as to include
members not mentioned therein.
13. In The Sub Registrar vs. Dr.Usha Dorairajan in W.A.No.544 of
2021, dated 04.06.2024, another Division Bench of this Court after referring
to view of the Division Bench in T.Muthu Balu case, held, the word 'family'
as defined in Article 58 is exhaustive and no other meaning can be assigned
to the expression, the relevant observation of the Division Bench reads as
follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“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.
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.”
14. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents vehemently contended that settlement executed in favour of the
member or members of the family alone is entitled to concessional stamp
duty and only the persons mentioned in the explanation to Article 58 can be
treated as members of the family. In other words, it is his contention that
since the relationship of grandfather and grandmother have not been
mentioned in the explanation they should be treated as non-family members
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
or out of the definition of the family. If grandfather and grandmother are
treated as non-members of the family, I do not know how the Settlement
Deed executed by them in favour of grandchild can be treated as a settlement
in favour of the member of the family within the meaning of Article 58.
15. A careful reading of the above said Article with explanation would
make it clear that unless both the Settlor and Settlee are the members of the
family, the settlement cannot be treated as the one in favour of member of
the family. The legislature attempted to define the word 'family' by
mentioning various relationships like father, mother, husband, wife, son,
daughter, grandchild, brother and sister. If X, a male, executes settlement in
favour of his son, it can be treated as settlement executed by father in favour
of his son. On the other hand, if X executes a settlement in favour of his
wife, it will be treated as a settlement executed by husband in favour of wife.
Likewise, if X executes a settlement in favour of his sister it will be treated
as a settlement executed by brother in favour of his sister. Likewise, if X
executes a settlement in favour of his mother, it is a settlement executed by
son in favour of mother. Therefore, very same person namely X with
reference to his relationship with Settlee is called as father, husband, brother
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
or son. Therefore, in order to claim benefit of concessional stamp duty under
Article 58, both Settlor and Settlee must be a member of the family. In no
case, a settlement executed by a non-member of the family can be treated as
a settlement executed in favour of the family member. If we look at the
relationship mentioned in the explanation, the relationships can be grouped
as different pairs based on the degree of relationship, namely father-son,
father-daughter, mother-son, mother-daughter, husband-wife, brother-sister.
However, there is no pair for grandchild because the expression
grandparents (grandfather or grandmother as the case may be) is missing in
the explanation.
16. As far as other relationships mentioned in the explanation, they
are included in the explanation along with their respective pairs. However,
as far as the expression grandchild is concerned, there is no pair because the
expression grandparent is missing. Only the grandparent can execute the
Settlement Deed in favour of grandchild, without including the expression
grandparent within the meaning of the word 'Family', the benefit of
concessional stamp duty cannot be conferred on the Settlement Deeds
executed in favour of grandchild. The legislature in its wisdom wanted to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
extend the meaning of the word family by including the Third Generation
relationship, namely grandchild. It is pertinent to mention that all other
relationships are either next or previous generation relationships or
collaterals, for example sons and daughters are next generation relationships.
Father and mother are previous generation relationships. Brothers and
Sisters, Husband and Wife are relationships in the same generation.
Therefore, by including the expression grandchild the legislature in its
wisdom wanted to confer the benefit of the concessional stamp duty on the
Third Generation relationship, namely grandchild (grand son or grand
daughter).
17. When the Third generation relationships are included in the
family, the First Generation relationship already available in the definition,
namely father and mother becomes grandparents. The First Generation
relationships, namely grandparents are connected to the Third Generation
relationship, namely grandchildren through the Second Generation
relationship, sons and daughters. Therefore, it is clear that legislature in its
wisdom wanted to give concessional stamp duty to the Settlement Deeds
executed by grandparents in favour of grandchild and Settlement Deed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
executed vice versa (i.e., Settlement Deeds executed by grandchild in favour
of grandparents). However, omission to include the expression grandparents
is only a mischief committed by the draftsman.
18. The following relationships in the explanation to Article 58,
namely father and mother represent the First Generation. The following
relationship, namely son and daughter represents Second Generation. The
Legislature by including the expression grandchild wants to bring the Third
Generation also into the fold of the word 'family'. When the Third
Generation grandchild is included in the definition of the word family, the
expressions father and mother, which are already available in the definition,
with reference to the Third Generation, shall be treated as grandfather and
grandmother. Therefore, the inclusion of the expression grandchild by the
legislature while explaining the word family by necessary implication
includes the word grandparents also. Because, the words father and mother
which represent First Generation in the definition, with reference to the
Third Generation grandchild, becomes grandfather and grandmother.
Therefore, I hold that by including the expression grandchild, legislature
wanted to confer the benefit of concessional stamp duty in respect of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Settlement Deeds executed by grandchild in favour of grandparents also.
The non-inclusion of the word grandparents in the explanation is only an
omission committed by the draftsman and the same will not affect or take
away the intention of the legislature to confer the benefit of concessional
stamp duty on the Settlement Deeds executed by grandparents in favour of
grandchild or vice versa.
19. Article 58(a)(i) says, instrument of settlement in favour of member
or members of family is entitled to concessional stamp duty. When it says
settlement in favour of family member, it means both Settlor and Settlee
shall be members of the family. Therefore, when grandchild is treated as
member of the family, the natural corollary is inclusion of the expression
grandparents into the meaning of the word family. If we treat grandparents
as a non-member of the family due to the omission committed by the
draftsman, then the Settlement Deed executed by a non-member cannot be
treated as a Settlement in favour of Member of his family. In such case, even
settlement in favour of grandchild will not get the benefit of concessional
stamp duty. Such interpretation will defeat the very intention of the
legislature to include the Third Generation also into the definition of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
expression “family”. In fact, the said view was taken by the Hon'ble
Mr.Justice V.Ramasubramanian (as he then was) in Santhosh-I case cited
supra. The said view was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in
Santhosh-II case cited supra.
20. In T.Muthu Balu case, cited by the learned Additional
Government Pleader, another Division Bench of this Court while
considering the settlement deeds executed in favour of great-grandchild held
that the definition of the word 'family' as found in Article 58 cannot be
extended so as to include persons not mentioned in the explanation. The
great-grandchild represents Fourth Generation of the family, as discussed
earlier, definition of the word family as found in explanation to Article 58,
only refers to relationships upto three generations. If we include the great-
grandchild also in the definition, it would amount to expansion of the
definition by brining Fourth Generation also into the definition of the word
'family'. Therefore, on the facts of that case, the other Division Bench in
T.Muthu Balu case held, family as defined in Article 58 cannot be extended
by including new members not named therein. However, in the case on
hand, as discussed earlier, the relationships representing three immediate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
generations are already included in the definition, which can be explained as
follows:-
(i) father, mother represents First Generation.
(ii) son, daughter represents Second Generation.
(iii) grandchild represents Third Generation.
21. The word father and mother employed in definition in relation to
Third Generation, namely grandchild shall be understood as grandfather and
grandmother. Because, father and mother representing First Generation
already comes within the definition of the word 'family'. The grandchild
representing Third Generation is also coming within the definition of the
word 'family'. When the member of the First Generation, father executes a
settlement deed in favour of Third Generation, grandchild, certainly the
settlement deed shall be conferred with the benefit of concessional stamp
duty. Therefore, I hold, the expression father and mother used in explanation
to Article 58 shall be understood as grandfather and grandmother with
reference to the other expression grandchild used in the very same
definition. By doing so, we do not include a new generation in the definition
of the word 'family'. Therefore, it cannot be treated as expansion of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
definition intended by the legislature. Hence, T.Muthu Balu case relied on
by the learned Additional Government Pleader, which involves inclusion of
Fourth Generation is not helpful to decide the present case, on the facts of
this case, which involves only three generations. The facts of the case in
Santhosh case-I and II are more identical to the facts of present case.
22. Infact, T.Muthu Balu case was cited before the Hon'ble
Mr.Justice V.Ramasubramanian (as he then was), who decided Santhosh-I
case and factual distinction between the two cases were pointed out by the
learned Judge and the decision in T.Muthu Balu case was distinguished on
facts. The Division Bench also in Santhosh-II case while affirming the view
of the learned Judge clearly said that the authority in T.Muthu Balu case
was distinguished by the learned Judge and therefore, they need not once
again discuss the authorities elaborately. It would be appropriate to refer to
the observation of the Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.Ramasubramanian (as he then
was) in Santhosh-I case in this regard which reads as follows:-
“9. In T.Muthu Pillai vs. Inspector General of
Registration, the question that came up for consideration
before the Division Bench of this Court was, as to whether a
great grandchild will come within the definition of the word
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“family” under Article 58 or not. The Division Bench held that
it would not. This is due to the fact that the definition of the
expression covers only three generations namely parents,
children and grandchild. It does not cover the fourth
generation. Therefore, the reasoning given in the decision of
the Division Bench in Muthu Pillai, cannot be applied.”
23. In The Sub Registrar vs. Dr.Usha Dorairajan in W.A.No.544 of
2021, dated 04.06.2024, another Division Bench of this Court after referring
to the view of the Division Bench in T.Muthu Balu case held that the word
'family' cannot be given an extended meaning by including the relationship
not already mentioned therein. As discussed earlier, the judgment in
T.Muthu Balu case was considered and distinguished by the learned Judge,
who decided the matter in Santhosh-I case and his view was affirmed by the
Division Bench in Santhosh-II case. However, the subsequent Division
Bench in The Sub Registrar vs. Dr.Usha Dorairajan has not considered the
affirming view of the Division Bench in Santhosh-II case.
24. In J.Chelladurai and another vs. The District Registrar and
another in W.A.No.436 of 2011, dated 14.10.2014, another Division Bench
of this Court also expressed the view that the word 'family' cannot be given
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
an extended meaning by including grandfather, who was not included in the
definition. In Santhosh-I case cited supra, the explanation to Article 58 was
considered in detail and the learned Judge held, that definition of the
expression 'family' as found in the explanation to Article 58 covers only
Three Generations, namely parents, children and grandchild and therefore,
the settlement deeds executed by grandchild in favour of grandparent and
grandparent in favour of grandchild can also be treated as settlements by the
members of the family and can claim benefit of the concessional stamp duty.
The said view was affirmed by the Division Bench in Santhosh-II case.
25. In Amar Singh Yadav and other vs. Shanti Devi and others
reported in AIR (1987) Pat 191, the Full Bench of Patna High Court held,
when there is a conflict of opinion between the Co-ordinate Benches of
Supreme Court, the High Court can follow the view expressed by the Bench,
which discusses the provisions of law in detail. The relevant observation of
Full Bench of Patna High Court reads as follows:-
“24. To conclude on this aspect, it is held that where
there is a direct conflict betwixt two decisions of the Supreme
Court rendered by co-equal Benches, the High Court must
follow that judgment which appears to it to state the law more
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
elaborately and accurately. The answer to question (1) posed at
the outset is rendered in these terms.”
In Santhosh-I case, the scope and ambit of definition of family as found in
explanation to Article 58 was considered in detail with reference to the
relationship and the generation represented by them and the said view was
affirmed by the Division Bench. Hence, I prefer to follow the view of the
Division Bench in Santhosh-II case and hold the words father and mother
employed in explanation to Article 58 shall be treated as grandfather and
grandmother with reference to Third Generation relation, grandchild and
therefore, the settlement deeds executed by grandchild in favour of
grandparents shall also be treated as settlement between the member of the
family. As a necessary consequence, such settlements are chargeable with
concessional stamp duty as per the Article 58(a)(i).
26. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that while
interpreting fiscal statues Court shall follow strict interpretation and literal
meaning of statute cannot be expanded by Courts by using power of
interpretation. There is no quarrel with regard to said submission made by
learned Additional Government Pleader. However, even in fiscal statutes
when there are two views, the view which will advance the object or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
intention of legislature shall be preferred.
27. In Commr. of Customs (Preventive) Mumbai vs. M.Ambalal and
Co., reported in (2011) 2 SCC 74, while dealing with interpretation of
exemption in taxing statutes, the Apex Court held thus:-
“16. ... ... ... ... The rule regarding exemptions is that
exemptions should generally be strictly interpreted but
beneficial exemptions having their purpose as encouragement
or promotion of certain activities should be liberally
interpreted. This composite rule is not stated in any particular
judgment in so many words. In fact, majority of judgments
emphasise that exemptions are to be strictly interpreted while
some of them insist that exemptions in fiscal Statutes are to be
liberally interpreted giving an apparent impression that they
are contradictory to each other. But this is only apparent. A
close scrutiny will reveal that there is no real contradiction
amongst the judgements at all. The synthesis of the views is
quite clearly that the general rule is strict interpretation while
special rule in the case of beneficial and promotional
exemption is liberal interpretation. The two go very well with
each other because they relate to two different sets of
circumstances.” (Emphasis supplied by this Court)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
28. In The State of Tamil Nadu vs. M.K.Kandaswami and others
reported in (1975) 4 SCC 745, the Apex Court observed as follows:-
“26. It may be remembered that Section 7-A is at once a
charging as well as a remedial provision. Its main object is to
plug leakage and prevent evasion of tax. In interpreting such a
provision, a construction which would defeat its purpose and,
in effect, obliterate it from the statute book, should be
eschewed. If more than one construction is possible, that which
preserves its workability, and efficacy is to be preferred to the
one which would render it otiose or sterile. ... ... ... ...”
29. In the light of above principle, let us examine case on hand.
Article 58(a)(i) of Schedule-I to Stamp Act wants to confer benefit of
concessional stamp duty to settlements executed in favour of member of
family. As elaborately discussed earlier, if we treat “Grand Parents” as non-
members of family due to omission of that expression in the explanation,
then settlement deed executed by Grand Parents, a non-member, in favour of
grand child cannot be treated as a settlement in favour of member of family.
Only a member of family can execute settlement in favour of another
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
member of family. A settlement by non-member can never be treated as
settlement in favour of member of family. Therefore, settlements executed in
favour of grandchild may not get concessional stamp duty as it was executed
by non-member. In order to treat a settlement as the one in favour of
member of family, both settlor and settlee shall be members of family.
Therefore, even if expression “grand child” is used in explanation, due to
omission of expression “grand parent”, there is a danger of denying benefit
of provision to settlement by grand parent in favour of grand children. The
object of using expression “grand child” is to bring Third Generation into
the fold of family. Any interpretation must achieve the object of
concessional stamp duty to settlement in favour of Third Generation by First
Generation. As I mentioned earlier, First Generation is represented by
expression “father” and “mother”. Those expressions in relationship with
Third Generation by necessary implication shall be read as grand father and
grand mother. Only the said interpretation will achieve the legislative object
of giving concessional stamp duty to settlements among relationships within
three generations in either descending or ascending order. Therefore, I hold
the interpretation made by this Court that words father and mother used in
explanation shall be understood as grand father and grand mother in relation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to expression grand child, will achieve the legislative intention of providing
concessional stamp duty to relationships upto Third Generations. This Court
can very well take note of omission by draftsman which will defeat the
intention of legislature and interpretate law so as to achieve legislative
intent.
30. In view of the discussion made earlier, refusal check slip issued by
3rd respondent on the ground that Settlement Deeds presented for registration
is liable to stamp duty under Article 58(a)(ii)-A of Schedule-I to the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899 is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same is
quashed and instrument was properly valued by the petitioner under Article
58(a)(i) of Schedule-I to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Accordingly, the
petitioner is directed to represent the document before the 3rd respondent
within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order
and the 3rd respondent is directed to register the same, if it is otherwise in
order.
31. In the result, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11.09.2024
Index : Yes
Speaking order:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes
dm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.Inspector General of Registration
100, Santhome High Road,
Pattinappakam,
Chennai-600 028.
2.The Assistant Inspector General of Registration/
District Registrar (Administration),
Chennai South District,
Integrated Building For Offices
of the Commercial Taxes and
Registration Department, Fanepet,
Nandhanam, Chennai – 600035.
3.The Sub Registrar
The Registration Office of Kundrathur
Chennai-600 069.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dm
11.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
