IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 2382 of 2011(W) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- VARGHESE @ GEVARGHESE,S/O.CHUMMAR, THOTTUPURATHU HOUSE, ASHAMANNUR KARA, ASHAMANNUR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. DR.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN, SRI.TOMMY LOUIS. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. DISTRICT REGISTRAR,ERNAKULAM-682 011. 2. SUB REGISTRAR, KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691. 3. ANNAMMA,W/O.ALIAS, MUTHUKADU HOUSE, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 541. 4. MARIAMMA, W/O.LATE YACOB,THOTTUPURATH HOUSE,ASHAMANNUR VILLAGE,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 683 549. 5. BABY, S/O.YACOB,THOTTUPURATHU HOUSE, ASHAMANNUR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 549. 6. SISLY,W/O.MATHAI, KOTTALIL HOUSE, KOTTAPPADY KARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 549. 7. ELDHO, S/O YACOB, THOTTUPURATHU HOUSE, ASHAMANNUR VILLAGE,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 549. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 2382 OF 2011 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents 1 and 2 have not acceded to the request made by the petitioner to register Ext.P1 release deed executed by the respondents 3 to 7 demanding a higher rate of stamp duty as stipulated under Article 48(b) of the Kerala Stamp Act. It is stated that, by virtue of the amendment brought about to the Kerala Stamp Act, as per the provisions of Kerala Finance Act, 2010, the document is covered by the stipulation under Article 48(a). 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the relinquishment of rights over the property is sought to be effected by the third respondent, who is the sister of the petitioner and also by the respondents 4 to 7 who are the legal heirs of the petitioner's Late brother by name, Yacob. Since the property that is to be relinquished by respondents 4 to 7 is the property which originally belonged to the Late brother of the petitioner, the said legal heirs are simply stepping into the shoes Wpc 2382/2011 2 of the deceased brother and as such, the document ought to have been valued only as provided under Article 48(a), submits the learned counsel. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents submits that the idea and understanding of the petitioner is quite wrong and misconceived; besides the fact that the petitioner has chosen to implead the second respondent as if he were the competent authority; whereas the property being situated in Asamannur Village, the concerned authority who is having jurisdiction over the area is Sub Registrar, Kuruppampady. 4. Going by the scheme of the Statute and the relevant provisions, it is seen that all legal heirs of the deceased are not entitled to be covered under Article 48(a), which is obvious from the intention of the legislature while referring to the legal heirs of the deceased as included under Article 42 with regard to `partition' of the property concerned. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, before the amendment as aforesaid, the entitlement under Article 48(a) as originally existed only included the `spouse or children' of the persons eligible for the benefit Wpc 2382/2011 3 thereunder; the scope of which has been widened by virtue of the amendment, bringing in the specified persons as well within the sweep, ie, father, mother, husband, wife, son, daughter, brother or sister of a person. 5. In the said circumstances, the intention of the legislature is crystal-clear, that nobody else other than the persons specifically provided under Article 48(a) is entitled to have the benefit of the concessional stamp duty as specified therein, and in all other cases, the actual stamp duty payable is as provided under Article 48(b). This Court finds that the version put forth by the respondents is perfectly justified. There is no tenable ground to call for interference. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE lgk