JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, M. - The facts are: Lal Chand Sindhi was auction purchaser of house No. HS/A-9/35 Intezar Manzil (old) and new No. 485/7, Nanpara House, Mohan Makines Road, Daliganj, Lucknow. On 15.4.1988 he writes a Will favouring his son Ram Chandra and his wife Smt. Hiralbai. Lal Chand Sindhi expires in 1972. The name of his son Ram Chandra alone was mutated in Nagar Mahapalika Lucknow since 1972. The successor Ram Chandra also dies and name of his wife Smt. Rani Lalwani is mutated on 3.7.1977, On 3.6.1988 Smt. Hiralbai executes a deed of renunciation in favour of Smt. Rani Lalwani, the consideration paid is at Rs. 1,75,000.00. All right, title and interest in the building are released in favour of daughter-in-law Smt. Rani Lalwani. The deed of relinquishment is registered on 3.6.1988 and this closes the transactions: 2. On 16.6.1988 Sub-Registrar submits a reference under Section 47-A Stamp Act to Addl. Collector (F & R)for legal action as he senses this one a case of under valuation. A show cause notice is issued to Smt. Rani Lalwani. The objection in opposition of Smt. Lalwani argues that her husband had been in occupation of the house and her name alone is entered in Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow. She is owner in possession of the house as successor of her husband. The consideration set forth in the deed of relinquishment is enimently just and proper. The reference is misconceived because it is not a case of under valuation. On 8.8.1991 Addl. Collector (F & R) Lucknow determines that the deed is transfer of interest in land at Rs. 1,75,000.00. He concludes that payment of stamp duty in accordance with clause (b) of Article 55 of Schedule I-B of Indian Stamp Act is bad in law. He directs further more to pay stamp duty at Rs. 19,975.00. Also a penalty at Rs. 1,000.00. Aggrieved by this order. Smt. Rani Lalwani lodges this revision. 3. Heard the counsel for the parties and persued the record. 4. I am called upon to determine the nature of document dated 3.6.1988 executed by Smt. Hiralbai favouring her daughter-in-law Smt. Rani Lalwani. Counsel for revisionist submits that documents is essentially a deed of relinquishment not a sale or transfer or a partition deed, I am not impressed by this argument, Lal Chandra Sindhi had executed a Will favouring his son Ram Chandra and wife Smt. Hiralbai. Counsel for revisionist submits that documents is essentially a deed of relinquishment not a sale or transfer or a partition deed, I am not impressed by this argument, Lal Chandra Sindhi had executed a Will favouring his son Ram Chandra and wife Smt. Hiralbai. By Will deed dated 15.4.1988 Smt. Hiralbai became entitled to only half share in the property. That her name was not noted in the records at Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow is not consequential. The mutation of name or possession of both are running incidents that characterise the condition of a property at a moment. In themselves they do not create or extinguish a legal right. Smt. Hiralbai had no cause to agitate for entry of her name as name of her son was recorded. On his death, the name of Smt. Rani Lalwani is recorded. But this is not enough to undermine her title as co-sharer in the property. In the residential house there was no question of exclusive possession even though the co-owners were living all along in one part or the other according to mutal understanding. The counsel for revisionist contends that Smt. Rani Lalwani is alone virtual owner in possession and relinquishment of alleged rights is not transfer or partition. He call to attention 7784 Alld. 107. In this precedent a release deed by a co-owner in favour of others was not treated as a deed of conveyance. This position is no longer a good law in view of change brought about in Section 2 (10) Indian Stamp Act. It's explanation clearly states that an instrument whereby a co-owner of a property having defined share therein, transfers such share to co-owner, is for the purpose of this clauses an Instrument by which property is transferred. The counsel for revisionist also refers to AIR 1992 Orissa 1. In this case the document was described as a deed of settlement. It was held that it will not come within the purview of Section 2 (24) Stamp-Act. The document was about the division of joint family property by the Karta which is clearly a instrument of partition within the meaning of Section 2 (15). The document could be a settlement within the meaning of Section 2 (24) (b) if the property belongs to the settler. The document was about the division of joint family property by the Karta which is clearly a instrument of partition within the meaning of Section 2 (15). The document could be a settlement within the meaning of Section 2 (24) (b) if the property belongs to the settler. When the property is of joint family and not of the settler along, the document by which such property is divided cannot be described as a settlement. Hence a document which recorded a family settlement made previously would not be required to be stamped. So are not the material facts here. Smt. Hiralbai is transferring her share in property in favour of co-owner. Support to this view is available from a number of decided cases. U.P. Board's file No. 173/44/45 district Muzaffarnagar decided on 9.7.1964. In this case the instrument was held to be a partition when there were two claimants who purported to be co-owner. The instrument was held to be partition. In OCRA v. B.A. Malaya AIR 1971 Mad. 210 the Court observed. In a partition of joint family property, in a sense there is a kind of release by one of the co-sharers in favour of others. The essence of a partition is that joint ownership must be substituted by separate ownership of the erstwhile co-sharers. So are the crucial observations in AIR 1964 Mysore 124 and AIR 1989 Madras 257. 5. On a consideration of foregoing, I am of firm opinion that the deed of relinquishment executed by Smt. Hiralbai is really a deed of conveyance of her share in the building. In this perspective, the order for further more payment of stamp duty is eminently just and proper. Revision is hereby partly dismissed. Revision is partly allowed and penalty at Rs. 1,000.00 is set aside.