P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the first respondent in impounding the documents dated 11-11-1967 and 14-2-1981 by collecting stamp duty of Rs. 5. 00 and 10 times penalty on each of the documents, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, by further declaring that the said documents are not properly impounded and for other appropriate reliefs. ( 2 ) THE facts, as narrated by the writ petitioners in the affidavit in support of the writ petition, in nutshell are as follows: It is stated that respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are the plaintiff in OS No. 51 of 1994 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Nizamabad, had instituted the said suit for partition and separate possession and in support of their claim for the said reliefs, they had submitted two documents dated 11-11-1967 and 14-2-1981 and when an objection was raised, the learned Subordinate Judge referred the said documents to the first respondent, the competent authority under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, hereinafter referred in short as act for the purpose of convenience, vide Letter Dis. No. 427, dated 20-4-1996, for the purpose of impounding the documents by collecting stamp duty and penalty. It is the specific case of the writ petitioners that, in fact, written objections were filed in view of the recitals of the said documents the stamp duty and penalty has to be collected treating the said documents as conveyance within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. But, however, the first respondent had erroneously imposed only Rs. 5 towards Stamp Duty on each of the document and had ordered impounding of the said documents, dated 11-11-1967 and 14-2-1981. The main grievance of the writ petitioners, as can be seen, is that the first respondent cannot impose the Stamp Duty and Penalty at his whims and fancies, but the imposition of penalty should be in accordance with law and further the suit, referred to supra, itself is based on these documents. The main grievance of the writ petitioners, as can be seen, is that the first respondent cannot impose the Stamp Duty and Penalty at his whims and fancies, but the imposition of penalty should be in accordance with law and further the suit, referred to supra, itself is based on these documents. If proper Stamp Duty and Penalty is not levied in this regard by the competent authority, lot of prejudice will be caused to them and since the writ petitioners are left with no other alternative remedy, they are invoking the jurisdiction of this Hon ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 3 ) A counter-affidavit is filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 taking a specific stand that the recitals in the documents in question, do not convey or transfer anything and hence. Article 20 of the Schedule-I-A of the Act has no application. Further, a specific stand was taken in the counter-affidavit that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the first respondent is legal and justified. ( 4 ) HEARD Sri Santhosh representing Sri R. Subhash Reddy, the learned Counsel for the writ petitioners, and Sri Rajagopal Rao, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and also Sri T. Veerabhadraiah, the learned Counsel representing respondent Nos. 2 and 3. ( 5 ) THE facts had been narrated in detail supra, which need not be repeated again. In the present case, as per the directions of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nizamabad, in OS No. 51 of 1994, the documents dated 11-11-1967 and 14-2-1981, had been sent to the first respondent for the purpose of impounding by levying appropriate Stamp Duty under the provisions of the Act. The main grievance of the writ petitioners is that the Stamp Duty and Penalty is levied by the first respondent by impounding the documents by collecting the Stamp Duty at Rs. 5. 00 only and ten times of Penalty and these orders relating to the impounding of the documents, stated supra, are not sustainable since these documents fall within the meaning of conveyance under the provisions of the Act. 5. 00 only and ten times of Penalty and these orders relating to the impounding of the documents, stated supra, are not sustainable since these documents fall within the meaning of conveyance under the provisions of the Act. Section (2) (1) of the Act defines "conveyance" as follows:"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 Schedule I (or by Schedule I-A as the case may be)". Article 20 of Schedule I-A of the Act reads as follows:"conveyance as defined by Section 2 (10) not being a sale, charged under (No. 47-A) or a transfer charged or exempted under (No. 53)". (a) Where the amount or value of the consideration for such conveyance as set forth therein (or the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of the conveyance whichever is higher) does not exceed Rs. 50; (b) Where it exceeds Rs. 50, but does not exceed Rs. 1,000; (c) Where it exceeds Rs. 1,000. (Provided that where an agreement to sell an immovable property is stamped with ad valorem stamp required for a conveyance on sale under Article 47-A and a conveyance on sale in pursuance of such agreement is - subsequently executed, the duty on such conveyance on sale shall be the duty payable under the article less the duty already paid under Article 47-A subject to a minimum of five rupees.) It is pertinent to note that Section 2 Clause (10) of the Act was amended by Act 8 of 1998 (State Act) and the said amendment is not applicable to the documents in question since both the documents relate to the prior period. Now, the crucial question that has to be considered in the present writ petition is whether the orders made by the first respondent impounding these documents imposing Rs. 5. 00 and ten times penalty towards the collection of Stamp Duty and Penalty are in accordance with law or not? As can be seen from the contents of the documents, the relevant portions of the recitals are as specified hereunder:"on this the 11th day of November, 1967 equal to Telugu year Plavanga, Month Kartheekamu, Tidhi - Suddha Dasami on Saturday, decided to perform the marriage of Chy. Bhupal Reddy, Eldest son of Sri Thirupuri Ram Reddy with Chy. As can be seen from the contents of the documents, the relevant portions of the recitals are as specified hereunder:"on this the 11th day of November, 1967 equal to Telugu year Plavanga, Month Kartheekamu, Tidhi - Suddha Dasami on Saturday, decided to perform the marriage of Chy. Bhupal Reddy, Eldest son of Sri Thirupuri Ram Reddy with Chy. Sunanda, elder daughter of Sri Katipalli Raja Reddy to take him illatum by giving l/3rd share in immovable properties and brought him. This paper was written and given with my own conscience on 11-11-1967 and it is true. "likewise, the document dated 14-2-1981 is a letter which has been executed and given by agreeing to give immovable property to the elder daughter K. R. Sunanda Devi and (illatum son in-law) T. Bhupal Reddy as per the last wish of her husband i. e. , the husband of the first petitioner Sri K. R. Raja Reddy. It is, no doubt, true that certain details of the properties had been mentioned. But, however, in the last portion it had been specified that the first writ petitioner has no objection for certain terms and conditions and further it was stated "this paper has been drafted and given before the following witnesses as true and correct". From the total reading of all the recitals in both the documents, it cannot be said that any rights relating to immovable properties as such had been conveyed under these documents. It is needless to say that the validity or otherwise of these documents may be the subject-matter of the civil dispute, which is pending between the parties. In the present writ petition, the Court is concerned only with the legality or otherwise of the impugned orders made by the first respondent with regard to the impounding of these documents. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue had placed reliance on Ravilla Subba Naidu and Ors. v. G. Subbaiah and Ors. , 1992 (1) An. WR 364, and had contended that in the light of the text laid down in the said decision, these documents cannot be construed to be conveyance within the meaning of Section 2 (10) of the Act read with Article 20 of Schedule I-A of the said Act. v. G. Subbaiah and Ors. , 1992 (1) An. WR 364, and had contended that in the light of the text laid down in the said decision, these documents cannot be construed to be conveyance within the meaning of Section 2 (10) of the Act read with Article 20 of Schedule I-A of the said Act. The learned Counsel for the writ petitioner had placed strong reliance on a decision reported in Ruby Sales and Services (P) Limited and another v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. , (1994) 1 SCC 531 , and had drawn my attention to paragraph Nos. 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the said Judgment and had contended that the definitions of conveyance and instrument start with the expression includes which shows that the definition are very wide and hence, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court, the instruments in question also fall within the meaning of the word conveyance in the Act. It is pertinent to note that the question which was raised before the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision was whether a consent decree whereunder the title to immovable property is conveyed expressly falls under the definition of "conveyance" under Section 2 (g) or an "instrument" under Section 2 (1) of the Act or such consent decree falls outside the ambit and scope of the definition of "conveyance" or "instrument" under the said Act. As far as the proposition laid down by the Apex Court is concerned, there cannot be any dispute. But, inasmuch as, in view of the foregoing discussion, under the documents, in question, no title to the immovable property as such had been transferred. These documents do not fall under the definition of conveyance under the Act and hence, there is no illegality in the orders made by the first respondent in this regard. ( 6 ) IN the light of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. But, however, in view of the relationship between the parties, no order as to costs.