Judgment :- Heard learned Government Pleader also. 2. The question for consideration in this original petition is whether Ext. P5 document conferring on the second party therein the right of passage through the private road owned by the first party therein is a conveyance as defined in the Kerala Stamp Act. 1959. The facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows: 3. Ext. P5 is a document under which Shri. P.C.Chacko, Smt.Chinnamma Chacko and Shri. Roy Chacko formed the first party and the petitioner herein was the second party. The first party under Ext.PS is the owner of a private road having 17 links width and 410 links length running from the bypass road and leading to the property situated on the western side of the main road in Sy. Nos. 125/B and 125/13A in Edappally South village. The first party is the owner of the said private road by virtue of registered document No. 158/159 and 1041 of 1981 and 2445 of 1985 of S.R.O., Edappally. Ext. P5 document was executed between the first party and the petitioner who figures as second party therein as already noticed since the petitioner intended to purchase building No. 48/497 B situated Sy. No. 125/13A belonging to Roy Chacko, son of the first named person of the first party in Ext. P5. On a perusal of Ext. P5 produced along with C.M.P. No. 2006/95, it is seen that as consideration for the first party permitting the petitioner to have road access to building No. 48/497 B the petitioner has paid to the first party a sum of Rs. 25,000 and in consideration thereof, it is agreed by the first party that the petitioner will have the right of passage through this private road at all times and for ail matters including carrying of vehicles, laying pipes, running electric line, phones, etc. and the first party cannot on any account obstruct the petitioner in this regard. Ext. P5 also mentions that pucca document evidencing conveyance will be registered later. This was so arranged because at the time when Ext. P5 was entered into, all the owners of the pathway were not available for signature. The pathway really belonged to 5 people of whom 4 alone signed in the agreement, the other co-owner of the pathway being out of station could not join in the agreement. In Ext. This was so arranged because at the time when Ext. P5 was entered into, all the owners of the pathway were not available for signature. The pathway really belonged to 5 people of whom 4 alone signed in the agreement, the other co-owner of the pathway being out of station could not join in the agreement. In Ext. P5 the parties further agreed that the property in question will be used only as a pathway. Ext. P5 was executed as a memorandum of agreement on a stamp paper worth Rs. 15/- under Article 5 of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act (for short 'the Act. Treating the document Ext. P5 as a conveyance and stamp paper oh which the agreement is written insufficient for the purpose, the third respondent, Sub Registrar, refused registration for the document and impounded the same under Section 44 of the Act. The third respondent thereafter forwarded the document to the second Despondent, namely, District Registrar (General), Ernakulam who is designated as Collector for the purpose of the Act. The second respondent forwarded the document with a report to the Inspector General of Registration who in turn forwarded a copy of Ext. P5 document with his report for the decision of the Board of Revenue under S.54(2) of the Act. The Board of Revenue as per Ext. P4, agreed with the views of the Inspector General of Registration and held that the impounded document No. P2/87 of S.R.O., Edappally is a'conveyance'. Based on Ext. P4, the District Registrar (.General), Ernakulam as per Ext. P1 has taken a decision that the deficit stamp duty for the impounded document Ext. P5 is a sum of Rs. 3,110/-. He has accordingly issued instructions for the recovery of the said sum from the petitioner and if the amount is not paid, revenue recovery steps will be taken for recovering the said amount. Ext. P1 was followed by Ext. P2 notice wherein it is stated that unless the amount of Rs. 3,110/- as directed to be paid as per Ext. P1 is not paid within 15 days of Ext. P2 notice, revenue recovery proceedings for recovery of the said sum will be taken without further notice. The challenge in the original petition is directed against Exts. P1, P2 and P4. 4. The question that arises for consideration is whether the impounded document Ext. P5 is a 'conveyance or not. P1 is not paid within 15 days of Ext. P2 notice, revenue recovery proceedings for recovery of the said sum will be taken without further notice. The challenge in the original petition is directed against Exts. P1, P2 and P4. 4. The question that arises for consideration is whether the impounded document Ext. P5 is a 'conveyance or not. Section 2 (d) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (Act 17 of 1959) defines 'conveyance' as follows: "2(d) : "conveyance" includes a conveyance on sale and every instrument by which property, whether movable, or immovable is transferred inter vivos and which is not otherwise specifically provided for by the Schedule." From a scrutiny of the definition of the expression 'conveyance' as defined in Section 2(d) of the Act it is clear that only an instrument by which property whether movable or immovable is transferred inter vivos alone will amount to a conveyance whereas what has been dealt with in Ext. P5 is only a right of passage in favour of the petitioner through the private road belonging to the first party. There is a specific condition in Ext. P5 wherein the parties have agreed that the property in question will be used only as a pathway. By Ext. P5, the petitioner cannot be said to have become the transferee of the land. On the other hand, the petitioner is only the person in whom the right of passage alone is vested and that too the exclusive use of it is not granted to him and what has been granted as per Ext. P5 is right of passage and nothing more. Had the right of sub-soil of the road been granted to the petitioner, it would have been possible to say that there is a conveyance by which immovable property has been transferred. But that is not the case here. As already noticed, only a right of way over the road in question alone is granted in which case "only the reasonable enjoyment of the road passes". The right created by Ext. P5 is only a right of passage and not any corporeal interest in the land and the sub-soil of the land is in no way the property of the owner of the right, namely, the petitioner - see in this connection Katiar on Easements, Ivth Edn. 1959 pages 648 and 649. The right created by Ext. P5 is only a right of passage and not any corporeal interest in the land and the sub-soil of the land is in no way the property of the owner of the right, namely, the petitioner - see in this connection Katiar on Easements, Ivth Edn. 1959 pages 648 and 649. It may be possible to argue that the right of passage creates an interest in immovable property, but in order that the document may be branded as a'conveyance' there should be transfer of property as defined in the section which is not the case here. Accordingly, I am of the view that Ext. P5 is not' a conveyance as defined under Section 2(d) of the Act. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice the decision reported in Satya narayana Kurti v. Chekka Lakshmayya ( A.I.R.1929 Mad. 79) wherein it has been held that the creation of a right of easement by grant is not such a transfer of ownership as is contemplated by Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. The said decision also holds that there is nothing in law which necessitates the creation of an easement being evidenced by registered document. In the light of the above discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that Ext. P5 document is not a 'conveyance' as defined in Section 2(d) of the Act. Accordingly, Exts.P1, P2 and P4 are hereby quashed and the original petition is allowed.