B. J. DIVAN, B. K. MEHTA, T. U. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) IN both of these References the question involved is as to what is the proper Article of the First Schedule of the Bombay Stamp Act 1958 applicable to the case wherein a person throws his moveable property in the family hotch-potch and converts it from a separate property into a joint family property. ( 2 ) THE point involved in both the References is the same and therefore we shall refer only to the facts relating to Reference No. 1/71. The facts of this Reference are that one Laxmikant alias Arvindbhai Chandulal Parikh possessed the cash amount of Rs. 20 0 He threw this amount in the common stock of the family consisting of himself his wife and three minor sons by making a declaration in writing as found at Ann. B. This declaration was made in a document bearing a stamp of Rs. 3. 00. When it was presented for registration the Collector and Assistant Superintendent of Stamps Gujarat State found that it was chargeable with stamp duty of Rs. 800. 00 under Art. 55 (A) (ii) of the 1st Schedule of the Bombay Stamp Act 1958 (which is hereinafter referred to as the Act) and therefore was chargeable under Art. 25 (a) of that Schedule as a conveyance. He therefore found that there was a deficit of stamp duty of Rs. 797. 00. Under the circumstances he made an order under sec. 39 (b) of the Act requiring the stamp duty of Rs. 797. 00 together with the penalty of like amount. He thus passed an order of recovery of the total amount of Rs. 1594. 00 from the defaulter Laxmikant alias Arvindbhai Chandulal Parikh. The matter was thereafter taken to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Gujarat State who by his order dt. 11-11-65 confirmed the view taken by the Collector. Thereafter a writ application was filed before this court in which the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority was directed by this court to make a Reference to this court under sec. 54 (1) of the Act. Accordingly the present Reference is made and the following question is referred to us: which is the proper article under which the document (Ann. B) dt. 54 (1) of the Act. Accordingly the present Reference is made and the following question is referred to us: which is the proper article under which the document (Ann. B) dt. December 22 1964 is chargeable with stamp duty under the Bombay Stamp Act 1958 Article 55 read with Article 25 (a) Article 52 (b) read with sec. 6 of the Bombay Stamp Act 1958 or Article 4 as claimed by the applicant or any other Article. ( 3 ) ART. 55 of the First Schedule under which the document in question is sought to be charged speaks of a settlement. Cl. (i) thereof speaks of the instrument by which the settlement is made for a religious or charitable purpose. For this Reference we are not concerned with this clause. Cl. (ii) speaks of other cases and provides that the duty chargeable would be the same as leviable on a conveyance under Cl. (a) or (b) as the case may be of Art. 25 for a consideration equal to the amount or value of the property settled. Thus if the case falls under Cl. (ii) of Art. 55 (A) then the duty is to be charged as if the document in question is a conveyance and that charge should be made as provided either in cl. (a) or (b) of Art. 25. It is therefore necessary to see what the Art. 25 provides. Art. 25 (a) provides for a conveyance other than a conveyance specified in cl. (b) not being a transfer charged or exempted under Art. No. 59 and cl. (b) contemplates a conveyance not being a transfer charged or exempted under Art. No. 59 so far as it relates to immoveable property: situate within an urban area. This case is not covered by Art. 59 and therefore it is not necessary to refer to that article. The charge which is to be made one conveyance falling either in cl. (a) or i (b) of Art. 25 is ad-valorem and according to the table given thereunder. ( 4 ) THE alternative plea of the Revenue is that if it is found that the document in question does not fall within Art. 55 of the First Schedule as a settlement it should be treated as a release falling under Art. 52. It is therefore necessary to mention what Art. 52 provides. ( 4 ) THE alternative plea of the Revenue is that if it is found that the document in question does not fall within Art. 55 of the First Schedule as a settlement it should be treated as a release falling under Art. 52. It is therefore necessary to mention what Art. 52 provides. This article provides for a release that is to say any instrument (not being such a release as is provided for by sec. 24) whereby a person renounces a claim upon another person or against any specified property. Therefore we have to consider in the alternative whether the document which is presented for registration amounts to release within the meaning of this Art. 52. ( 5 ) WE shall first take up for our consideration the question whether the document in question can be treated as a settlement within the meaning of Art. 55. The word settlement is defined in cl. (t) of sec. 2 of the Act. This definition is as under: (t) settlement means any non-testamentary disposition in writing of movable or immoveable property made. (i) in consideration of marriage (ii) for the purpose of distributing property of the settler among his family or those for whom he desires to provide or for the purpose of providing for some person dependent on him or (iii) for any religious or charitable purpose and includes an agreement in writing to make such a disposition and where any such disposition has not been made in writing any instrument recording whether by way of a declaration of Trust ar otherwise the terms of any such disposition. ( 6 ) ). This definition of the word settlement shows that the document in question must be found to be a disposition. The word disposition has been construed by Supreme Court in GOLI ESWARIAH V. COMMISSIONER OF GIFT TAX A. P. (1970) 76 I. T. R. 675. The question which arose in that case was whether the unilateral declaration of a Hindu coparcener whereby he throws his self-acquired property into the common stock of joint family property amounts to a transfer so as to attract the provisions of the Gift-tax Acts 1958. The Supreme Court considered the relevant provisions of the Gift-tax Act. The expression transfer of property is defined by sec. 2 (xxiv) of that Act as meaning any disposition conveyance assignment settlement delivery payment or other alienation of property. The Supreme Court considered the relevant provisions of the Gift-tax Act. The expression transfer of property is defined by sec. 2 (xxiv) of that Act as meaning any disposition conveyance assignment settlement delivery payment or other alienation of property. The definition further proceeds to include other transactions with which we are not considered in this Reference. But the above general definition of the expression transfer of property which is given in sec. 2 (xxiv) of the Gift-tax Act shows that the word disposition is used therein in conjunction with other transactions namely conveyances assignments settlement delivery payment or other alienation of property suggesting a bilateral transaction. The Supreme Court held that the word disposition is not a term of law and has no precise meaning. The Supreme Court therefore gathered this meaning in the context in which it is used and found that in the context in which this word is used in sec. 2 (xxiv) it cannot mean to dispose of. It further held that since this word is used along with other words indicating bilateral transactions it should be held as not referring to any unilateral act of declaration. ( 7 ) NOW so far as the definition of settlement as given by sec. 2 (t) of the Stamp Act is concerned it is found that the word disposition is not used in context of any other bilateral transactions. Therefore there is some scope for the argument that the word disposition as used in sec. 2 should be given its natural meaning. But even if it is believed that the word is used in its natural dictionary meaning the question which still remains to be considered is whether it is a disposition simpliciter which is contemplated by sec. 2 (t) of the Act. We have already quoted the whole definition of the word settlement as given in sec. 2 (t ). That definition shows that disposition should be for any of the three purposes mentioned in cls. (i) (ii) and (iii ). Cl. (i) says that the disposition should be in consideration of marriage Cl. (ii) says that the disposition should be for the purpose of distributing property of the settler among his family or those for whom he desires to provide or for the purpose of providing for some person dependent on him and Cl. (iii) says that disposition should be for a religious or charitable purpose. (ii) says that the disposition should be for the purpose of distributing property of the settler among his family or those for whom he desires to provide or for the purpose of providing for some person dependent on him and Cl. (iii) says that disposition should be for a religious or charitable purpose. Therefore unless the disposition evidenced by the document Ann. B falls within any of these three clauses it cannot be said that it amounts to a settlement as defined by cl. (t) of sec. 2 of the Act. The disposition evidenced by the document Ann. B is obviously not in consideration of marriage and it can also not be said that it is for the purpose of distribution of property among the family members or those for whom the executant wanted to provided for. When the property belonging to the individual co-parcener is thrown in the common hotch-potch there is no distribution for the simple reason that co-parcener throwing property continues to remain the joint owner of the property. The word distribution connotes something quite different from the joint ownership of the property. The person distributing property does not remain the owner thereof and creates ownership in favour of some other persons. Under these circumstances. We find that the disposition evidenced by the document Ann. B is not covered even by cl. (ii) of a sec. 2 (t) of the Act. It is obviously not covered by Cl. (iii ). That disposition simpliciter cannotamount to settlement is even otherwise clear because if the word disposition is used in its wider sense then even wasting a property or destroying a property may amount to disposition but such wastage or destruction of the property cannot be considered as a settlement with in the meaning of Cl. (t) of sec. 2. . We therefore conclude that the document found at Ann. B does not amount to a settlement and if it does not amount to settlement neither Art. 55 nor Art. 25 of the First Schedule of the Stamp Act is applicable to the facts of the case. ( 8 ) NEXT contention which is to be considered is the alternative; contention of the revenue that the document falls within the Art. 52 which contemplates the transactions by which release is made. ( 8 ) NEXT contention which is to be considered is the alternative; contention of the revenue that the document falls within the Art. 52 which contemplates the transactions by which release is made. But here is no scope for holding that the document amounts to a release because release postulates that the claim is renounced in favour of a person who has got some right in the property Release also connotes that the person releasing his right does not retain any ownership right over it. Here the facts are that the property is thrown in the common hotch-potch with the result that while before the said property was thrown the person throwing the property was the sole owner after it is so thrown he remains a joint owner. Therefore retention of joint ownership and the fact that the other members of the family had previous to the throwing of the property in the joint stock of the family no right in the property conclusively shows that the transaction does not amount even to a release as contemplated by Art. 52 of the First Schedule. ( 9 ) UNDER these circumstances what remains now to be considered is whether the disputed document is covered by Art. 4 of the First Schedule. This article refers to an affidavit and says that it also covers other affirmations of declarations in case of persons who are by law allowed to affirm or declare instead of swearing. In our opinion document Ann. B falls within this article and therefore it is chargeable with the stamp of Rs. 3. 50. ( 10 ) OUR answer to the questions which are referred to us in both the cases is that the document in question is not covered by Art. 55 (A) (ii) or by Art. 52 (b) of the Stamp Act but is covered by Art. 4 as claimed by the applicants. References are accordingly disposed off without any order as to costs. .