JUDGMENT - M.H. KANIA, Ag. C.J.:---This is a reference under section 57(2) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. 2. The facts giving rise to the reference are as follows :--- One Luis Guilherme Dias Colaco along with his sons Aulio, Francisco and Alberto executed a document entitled "Deed of Settlement". In the said document, Luis Colaco was referred to as "the Settlor". The relevant recitals in the Deed of settlement are to the effect that the Settlor is the absolute and exclusive owner in title and possessor of two landed properties, one known as "MADOLEM", situated at village Benaulim and the other a house property at Margao town. It is also recited in the deed that the consideration for the Deed of Settlement is the natural love and affection which the settlor bears for his sons on whom the property was being settled and to distribute his property among the settles to have them settled in life. The further object of the Settlor as recited in the Deed is to account for the future legitimate shares to which the Settles might be entitled in the estate of the Settlor. The operative part of the settlement is in accordance with these recitals, and by the operative part the Settlor settled the aforesaid properties on the Seedless to have and to hold the same absolutely and forever, but reserved to himself only the right of residence during his lifetime in the dwelling house, namely in the property at Margao town. The document also contains the approximate valuations of the properties settled. It is significant that under the document the Settles, namely the sons of Luis, who were parties to the Deed of Settlement, did not give up any of their rights or specified or adjust them. Luis lodged the document in the office of the Sub-Registrar at Silicate in January, 1979. The Sub-Registrar look the view that the document was not a Deed of Settlement, but a Deed of Gift. The Sub-Registrar impounded the document under section 33 of the Stamp Act and forwarded it to the Collector. After hearing the parties, the Additional Collector took the view that the document was a Deed of Gift and not a Deed of Settlement and he confirmed the demand for additional duty, namely deficit stamp duty of Rs. 5,600/- and penalty of Rs. 100/- made by the Collector's office. After hearing the parties, the Additional Collector took the view that the document was a Deed of Gift and not a Deed of Settlement and he confirmed the demand for additional duty, namely deficit stamp duty of Rs. 5,600/- and penalty of Rs. 100/- made by the Collector's office. On the application of Luis Colaco the matter was referred to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. Considering certain decisions the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority took the view that the document in question was a Deed of Settlement, but, as an application had been made to him for referring the matter to the High Court, he made reference under section 57(2) of the Stamp Act, as required by law. 3. The question which we have to examine is whether the aforesaid document is a Deed of Settlement or a Deed of Gift. Suffice it to say that, if it is held to be a Deed of Gift, it attracts the higher stamp duty payable as a conveyance, whereas if it is regarded as a Deed of Settlement, the duty payable would be at a lower rate as payable on a bond. 4. The submission of Mr. Nadkarni, the learned Counsel for the Revenue, is, that in determining the proper stamp duty on a Deed, the substance of the transaction as disclosed in the entire Deed is relevant and not the mere nomenclature which the parties give it. It is further urged than in order to constitute a family arrangement or a family settlement, it is necessary that there must be an agreement between members of a joint family to settle any existing or possible disputes relating to rights in property and to adjust their mutual rights and a document, whereby one party gives his property without consideration to other members of his family, cannot be regarded as a Deed of Settlement, but must be regarded as a Deed of Gift. 5. It is on the other hand contended by Mr. D'Costa learned Counsel for Luis Colaco, that it is open to a person to select the form of document to be entered into and to word it appropriately. 5. It is on the other hand contended by Mr. D'Costa learned Counsel for Luis Colaco, that it is open to a person to select the form of document to be entered into and to word it appropriately. He has further urged that where a statue gives a definition of a particular term for the purposes of that statute it is that definition alone which must be applied for the purposes of that statute and one cannot control that definition or enlarge it by the general meaning attributed to that term, or by the meaning attributed to that term, in other statutes. 6. In our view the correct approach to the matter is really simple. There is no doubt at all that in construing the document entitled "Deed of Settlement" we have to consider the document as a whole and to decide whether on a reading of the entire document it amounts to a Deed of Settlement or a Deed of Gift and that the nomenclature given to the document cannot be a conclusive factor. It is equally obvious that Mr. D'Costa's proposition that where a statue defines a term it is that definition which must be applied for construing that term for the purposes of that statute is an elementary proposition which has to be accepted. In fact, where a particular term is defined by a particular statute, Courts have always recognized that it is highly dangerous to seek guidance from the definition given to that term in other statutes for limiting or enlarging the connotation of that term. 7. It is with these principles in mind that we have to consider the relevant provisions of the Indian Stamp Act as amended by the Indian Stamp (Goa, Daman and Diu Amendment) Act, 1968. 8. Section 2 of the Indian Stamp Act is the definition section. Sub-section (10) of section 2 defines the term "conveyance" as follows : "Conveyance includes a conveyance on sale and every instrument by which property, whether moveable, or immovable is transferred inter vivos and which is not otherwise specially provided for by Schedule 1." The term "settlement" is defined in sub-section (24) in the following words : "Settlement' means any non-testamentary disposition, in writing, of movable or immovable property made--- (a) in consideration of marriage. (b) for the purposes of distributing property of the settlor among his family of those for whom he desires to provide, or for the purpose of providing for some person dependent on him; or (c) 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 declaration of trust or otherwise, terms of any such disposition." Section 3 deals with instruments chargeable with stamp duty. Schedules I and I-A provide for the proper stamp duty or rate of stamp duty to be charged on the various document referred to therein. Item 23 of Schedule I-A provides for the rates of stamp duty payable on a conveyance. Item 33 of Schedule I-A provides that the stamp duty has to be paid on an insistent of gift, not being a settlement (No. 58), as on a conveyance. Bonds are with under Item 15. It is sufficient to note that the rate of stamp duty payable on a bond is lower than that on a conveyance. Under Item 58, on a settlement the same duty is payable as on a bond. Coming to the present case, it appears to us that a plain reading of the document in question makes it clear that what the Settlor Luis did under the settlement was to distribute his properties referred to in that Deed among his sons reserving to himself only the right of residence in one particular property, namely the house property at Margao. The document thus squarely falls within the terms of Clause (b) of subsection 2 which subsection defines the term "settlement". A perusal of the document shows that the purpose of the same was to distribute the property of Luis among his sons who must obviously be regarded as members of his family. In view of the fact that the distribution is among the members of the family, it is not necessary to go into the question whether the sons were dependent upon Luis or not. Once the document falls within the definition of the term "settlement", under the said sub-section in our view, it is futile to consider whether it also falls within the definition of the term "conveyance". Once the document falls within the definition of the term "settlement", under the said sub-section in our view, it is futile to consider whether it also falls within the definition of the term "conveyance". On a reading of the definitions of both the terms contained in sub-section (10) and (24) of section 2 of the Stamp Act, it is clear that a document which is "settlement" may also fall within the wider connotation of the term "conveyance", but nevertheless, for the purposes of the Stamp Act the document would amount to a "settlement" and must be held to be liable to pay stamp duty as such. This is clear from the language of Item 33 of Schedule 1-A which were have referred to earlier. 9. We find support for the view which we are taking in (Satyendra Nath Chattopadhyaya v. Narendra Nath Ghose)1, I.L.R. 1967(2) Cal.p. 383, decided by a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court. It has been held in that case that the Indian Stamp Act is a fiscal statute and the word "settlement", as defined in the said Act, is not the same as in ordinarily understood in other matters. The word "settlement" has been given in the said Act a special and particular meaning and that meaning is the only relevant meaning of the word "settlement" for the purposes of that Act. The learned Judge has gone on to state as follows :--- "The word 'settlement' means for the relevant purpose---any non-testamentary disposition in writing of movable or immovable properties made (a) .................................. (b) for the purpose of distributing the properties of the settlor among his family or for those whom he desires to provide for. In this ease it is a non-testamentary disposition in writing. It relates to movable and immovable properties. The purpose of that deed is to distribute the property of the settlor among his family. The sons are members of his family. They may not be dependent, but they are still the members of the family.......". In (Upendra Nath Poddar ors. v. Anath Chandra Lodhi)2, I.L.R. 1951(1) Cal.p. 665 it has been held by a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court that where a statue gives a definition for an instrument that definition cannot be controlled by the meaning commonly attributed to it or by the meaning attributed to it by another statute. In (Upendra Nath Poddar ors. v. Anath Chandra Lodhi)2, I.L.R. 1951(1) Cal.p. 665 it has been held by a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court that where a statue gives a definition for an instrument that definition cannot be controlled by the meaning commonly attributed to it or by the meaning attributed to it by another statute. This principle was followed specifically by the learned Judge in relation to the interpretation of the term "settlement" under the Indian Stamp Act. 10. As against this, Mr. Nadkarni the learned Counsel for the Revenue, referred to the decision of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in (N. Durgaiah v. Commissioner of Gift Tax. A.P.)3, 1975(99) I.T.R. p. 477. The question in that case was whether a particular document amounted to a Deed of Gift or a family settlement for the purpose of section 5(1)(xii) of the Gift-Tax Act, 1958. In our view, the decision has no application whatsoever to the case before us and it is needless to spend time in discussing the same because it deals with the definition of the term "gift" given under a different Act altogether, namely the Gift-Tax Act, 1958 and that definition can have no bearing on the definition of the term "settlement" as given in Indian Stamp Act. The same can be said of the other cases cited by Mr. Nadkarni in this connection. They all pertain to other statutes and are of no assistance to us in view of the specific definition of the term "settlement" contained in the Indian Stamp Act. 11. In the result, were are of the view that the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority was right in his conclusion that the document in question was a Deed of Settlement. We would therefore, answer the reference by holding that the document in question is a Deed of Settlement and is liable to stamp duty on that footing. Looking to all the facts and circumstances and, in particular, that the application for reference was made by the respondent, Luis we feel that the proper order regarding costs would be that the parties should bear their own costs and it is directed accordingly. Order accordingly. -----