Judgment :- F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. This is a reference made by the petitioner under S. 57 of the Indian Stamp Act; 1889. The question that has been referred for consideration is "Whether in the circumstances and the facts of the case, the document dated 9-1-1978 (Document No. P3/78) of the Sub-Registrar's Office, Kottaram executed by the respondent in favour of his son Dr. D. Krishnamoorthy styled as "Release Deed" should be treated as a "Settlement Deed" as defined under S. 2 (24) of the Act attracting Stamp duty under Article 58 of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act" or is it only a release falling under Article 55 of the Schedule I ?" 2. According to the first respondent, he was the manager of the undivided Hindu Family consisting of himself and six of his sons, that after the death of his father in the year 1935, there was a demand for partition by his sons in the year 1969, that there were eight items of properties which were partitioned during the summer vacation 1969 amongst his sons, himself, and his wife, and that one of his sons was residing in United States right from July, 1967 and therefore the execution of the partition deed got postponed. It was further contended that a partition deed was prepared in the year 1971, that his five sons, his wife and the respondent signed the said deed and thereafter the same was forwarded to his second son Dr. C. Chellappa who was then residing at New York for his signature and return. According to the respondent, eversince, the partition which took place in the year 1969, the taxes, other levies etc. were being paid separately in the names of the respective individuals for whom the properties were allotted and therefore the properties had been faotually partitioned by metes and bounds. It was in those circumstances, when the respondent executed a release deed on 9-1-1978 in favour of his youngest son D. Krishnamoorthy in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Kottaram, Kanyakumari District releasing his right of patta in respect of the schedule properly, the Sub-Registrar referred the matter to the District Registrar and the District Registrar after notice to the respondent, by his proceedings dated 29-12-1978 levied a deficit stamp duty of Rs. 867.50 on the ground that the document dated 9-1-1978 was to be classified as settlement deed, though the respondent claimed the same to be one of release deed. Against the proceedings of the District Registrar, dated 29-12-1978, the respondent preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue and by order dated 9-5-1979, the Board of Revenue also confirmed the claim of the District Registrar made in its proceedings dated 29-12-1978. The Board of Revenue also felt that the issue was not one which required any reference under S. 57 of the Act. Thereafter, the respondent preferred W.P. No. 4240 of 1979 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 18-6-1982 with a direction to the petitioner to refer the issue to this Court under S. 57 of the Act to determine the nature of the document. 3. In the afore-stated circumstances, this reference has come before us. We perused the document dated 9-1-1978, that document is styled as release deed executed by the respondent in favour of his son Dr. D. Krishnomoorthy. As per the recitals of the said documents, two items of properties mentioned in the schedule to the document situated in Inam Survey No. 288A (Re-survey) No. 353/3, and in Inam S. No. 638 (Resurvey No. 653/1) measuring Ac 2.28 1/2 cents 56.5 Ares had a patta bearing No. 1166 that by virtue of the partition which took place around the year 1970. The schedule properties fell to the share of his son Dr. D. Krishnamoorthy who then took possession of the properties and was in enjoyment and that therafter he was paying the necessary charges in respect of the said properties. It is also stated therein that except the fact that the patta continued to stand in the name of the respondent, he did not have any other right over the said property, that at the request of his son Dr. D. Krishnamoorthy, the respondent herein agreed to release his right of patta in respect of the schedule mentioned properties in favour of his son and towards consideration of the same, he received a sum of Rs. 100/-. 4. It is relevant to note that the properties covered by the disputed document dated 9-1-1978 are stated to be one of the several items of the properties owned by undivided Hindu family of the respondent along with other members of the joint family. 100/-. 4. It is relevant to note that the properties covered by the disputed document dated 9-1-1978 are stated to be one of the several items of the properties owned by undivided Hindu family of the respondent along with other members of the joint family. In fact, the respondent produced as many as 15 documents in support of his submission that the partition of the various properties amongst himself and his sons had taken place as early as in or around the year 1970. Of the various documents produced, one series of documents filed under Item No. 12 consisted of tax receipts for payment of levy of paddy, demand notices for payment of taxes, distraint notice threatening attachment issued by the revenue authorities to the respondent and each of his sons and wife separetely. The recitals contained in the impugned document also disclose that what was sought to be released was only the right of patta standing in the name of the respondent in favour of his youngest son. The document also does not fit in to the definition of 'Settlement' as contained in S. 2 (24) of the Act. None of the ingredients set out therein could be applied to the document in question. On the other hand, it is a deed of release of right of patta executed by the respondent whereby he merely released his claim for patta against the scheduled properties. Therefore we are of the clear opinion that the document dated 9-1-1978 cannot be construed as a settlemnent deed as held by the Board of Revenue in its order dated 9-5-1979. The Board of Revenue failed to note that was sought to be released under the document was only a limited right of patta which continued to stand in the name of the respondent inasmuch as he was the Manager of the undivided Hindu family prior to the partition said to have been effected in the year 1970. Apparently, the failure to note the above crucial factor had mislead the Board of Revenue to conclude that the document in question should be construed as a settlement deed. We therefore answer the reference by holding that the document dated 9-1-1978 (Document No. P3/78) of the Sub Registrar, Kottaram executed by the respondent in favour of his son Dr. Apparently, the failure to note the above crucial factor had mislead the Board of Revenue to conclude that the document in question should be construed as a settlement deed. We therefore answer the reference by holding that the document dated 9-1-1978 (Document No. P3/78) of the Sub Registrar, Kottaram executed by the respondent in favour of his son Dr. D. Krishnamoorty is only a release deed falling under Articles 55 of the Schedule I and not a settlement deed as defined under S. 2 (24) of the Act attracting stamp duty under Article 58 of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act. Order accordingly.