Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition challenging an order passed by the Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, namely the 1st respondent. The said order came to be passed on an appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the 2nd respondent demanding the definite stamp duty in registering the document, which is an instrument of partition In terms of Section 2(15) of the Indian Stamp Act. As to how the stamp duty has to be levied is set out in the Schedule to the Stamp Act. As per the Stamp Act, the stamp duty is levied in case of partition among family members at a lesser rate than the non-family members and the term family is also defined in the explanation to Article 58 of the Schedule to the Stamp Act. In the present case, the partition was effected on the basis of the property inherited from one Henry Jebamani among the three sons. Thereafter the three sons were enjoying the property by release deed given by Henry Jebamani. Out of the three brothers, two died and the remaining one brother along with the other legal heirs of the two deceased brothers have entered into an agreement of partition. Initially the document was received as a document of family partition. Subsequently, it was found that it was revivable for stamp duty in terms of Article 45(b) and not 45(a). Questioning the order passed by the 2nd respondent, the appeal came to be filed. 2. The appellate authority namely the 1st respondent dismissed the appeal by referring to the provisions of the definition of 'family' found under the Schedule to the Stamp Act. A reference was also made to the judgment of the Division Bench in the District Registrar, Tindivanam, Villupuram District vs. V.Ranganathan and another reported in 2008 (1) CTC 1 . 2. The appellate authority namely the 1st respondent dismissed the appeal by referring to the provisions of the definition of 'family' found under the Schedule to the Stamp Act. A reference was also made to the judgment of the Division Bench in the District Registrar, Tindivanam, Villupuram District vs. V.Ranganathan and another reported in 2008 (1) CTC 1 . The Division Bench while analysing the difference between Article 45 (a) and 45(b) and 58 and Schedule-I, in paragraph 13, held as follows: "13.) Thus it is seen that the word, "family" is given a restrictive meaning, in its Application to Article 58 and the same meaning is imported to the word, "family: appearing in Article 45.j Consequently, the respondents would be entitled to claim the benefit of concessional rate of stamp duty under Article 45(a) only if both of them are members of a family, within the meaning of the definition of the word, "family". Obviously, the respondents do not fall within the definition of the word, "family" under Article 45(a).j Therefore, prima facie, the objection raised by the appellants with regard to the nature of the document is well founded. Under such circumstances, it is not possible to order the release of the documents, especially after an order has been passed by the first appellant. Admittedly, the respondents have filed an Appeal to the Chief Controlling Authority, viz., Inspector General of Registration, on 19.4.2006. Therefore, the respondents will have to await the outcome of the said Appeal and the question of return of documents could be considered only after final orders are passed on the Appeal." 3. In the light of the the above judgment pronounced by the Division Bench, the objection raised against the appellate order is unsustainable. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.