JUDGMENT : Kolli Venkata Raja Sekhar, the petitioner, created a family trust titled ‘K.G.K.Family Private Trust’ under registered Trust Deed No.269/Bk-iv/2012 dated 22.11.2012. The beneficiaries of this trust were the petitioner, his wife and two sons. The Trust Deed reflects that Nutakki Vittal and Vasireddy Vinod Kumar were appointed as trustees for the administration of this trust. The petitioner thereafter executed Settlement Deed dated 30.03.2013 settling his absolute property in favour of the trust. This property, admeasuring Acs.31.00 Gts., is situated in Madanapally Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. When the said Settlement Deed was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad, it was kept pending registration as Document No.P86/2013. This was because the Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad, addressed letter dated 01.06.2013 to the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, seeking a clarification as to the classification of this document. By Memo dated 18.06.2013, the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, stated that the subject document fell under Article 49.A(b) of Schedule I-A to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1899’) and directed the Sub-Registrar to take action in the matter and admit the document if it was otherwise in order. Consequent thereto, the Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad, issued Memo dated 09.07.2013 calling upon the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.4,65,000/- treating the document as one covered by Article 49.A(b) of Schedule I-A to the Act of 1899. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court. It is the contention of the petitioner that as the beneficiaries of the trust were none other than his own family members, the registration authorities should not have classified the Settlement Deed as one falling under Article 49.A(b) and ought to have treated it as one coming within the ambit of Article 49.A(a) of Schedule I-A to the Act of 1899. In his counter-affidavit, the Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad, sought to justify the stand of the registration authorities. He referred to the clarification issued by the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, in his Memo dated 18.06.2013, summing up that the document fell under Article 49.A(b) of Schedule I-A to the Act of 1899. Basing on this clarification, he defended his action in calling upon the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty treating the document as one covered by Article 49.A(b) of Schedule I-A to the Act of 1899. Basing on this clarification, he defended his action in calling upon the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty treating the document as one covered by Article 49.A(b) of Schedule I-A to the Act of 1899. The issue that falls for consideration is as to which clause of Article 49.A of Schedule IA to the Act of 1899 would apply to the subject document. Article 49.A of Schedule I-A to the Act of 1899, to the extent relevant, reads as under: 49. A. Instrument of (including a The same duty as a deed of dower)—(a) Bottomry Bond (No.14) settlement in favour of a for a sum equal to the member or members of a amount or market value family. of the property settled as set forth in such settlement: Provided that, where an agreement to settle is stamped with the stamp required for an instrument of settlement and an instrument of settlement in pursuance of such agreement is subsequently executed, the duty on such instrument shall be the duty as mentioned in Article 6. Explanation:-- For the b) in any other case Six purpose of this article rupees for every hundred “family” means father, rupees or part thereof of mother, husband, wife, the market value of the brother, sister, son, property which is the subject daughter and includes matter of settlement. grand-father, grandmother, grand-child, adoptive father or mother, adopted son or daughter. It is manifest from a bare reading of the above Article that a settlement deed in favour of a member or members of a family would fall within clause (a) and not clause (b) of Article 49.A. The petitioner executed the Settlement Deed dated 30.03.2013 settling Acs.31-00 Gts. of land situated in Madanapally Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, which was absolutely owned by him, in favour of ‘K.G.K. Family Private Trust’ represented by its trustee, Vasireddy Vinod Kumar. The Trust Deed dated 22.11.2012 reflects that this trust was created for the beneficiaries detailed in Schedule-II. Schedule-II contains the names of the petitioner, his wife and two sons. The object of the trust, as set out in the Trust Deed, is to utilize the trust funds and the income generated thereon for the benefit and maintenance of the beneficiaries. The two trustees were nominated to administer to this family trust and the Trust Deed reflects no relationship between them and the petitioner. The object of the trust, as set out in the Trust Deed, is to utilize the trust funds and the income generated thereon for the benefit and maintenance of the beneficiaries. The two trustees were nominated to administer to this family trust and the Trust Deed reflects no relationship between them and the petitioner. The Trust Deed provides that the trustees would only be entitled to annual trusteeship fee of Rs.5,000/- each. Though the Trust Deed vests the petitioner with the liberty to amend the list of beneficiaries set out in Schedule-II, the very nomenclature of the trust indicates that it is a private family trust. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in S.N.MATHUR V/s. BOARD OF REVENUE (2009) 13 SCC 301 ), the principles relating to charging of stamp duty are well settled. They are: i) The object of the Stamp Act is generation of revenue. It is therefore a fiscal enactment and has to be interpreted accordingly. ii) Stamp duty is levied with reference to the instrument and not in regard to the transaction, unless otherwise specifically provided in the Act. iii) Stamp duty is determined with reference to the substance of the transaction as embodied in the instrument and not with reference to the title, caption or nomenclature of the instrument. iv) For classification of an instrument, that is, to determine whether an instrument comes within a particular description in an Article in the Schedule to the Act, the instrument should be read and construed as a whole. v) Where an instrument falls under two or more descriptions in the Schedule to the Act, the instrument shall be chargeable with only one duty, that is the highest of the duties applicable to the different description. But where an instrument relates to several distinct matters, it shall be chargeable with the aggregate amount of duties to which separate instruments would be chargeable. Section 2(24) of the Act of 1899 defines ‘Settlement’ to mean, amongst others, a non-testamentary disposition of property for the purpose of distributing the property of the settler among his family. Black’s Law Dictionary defines ‘disposition’ as ‘the act of transferring something to the care or possession of another; or relinquishment or giving up of property’. Section 2(24) of the Act of 1899 defines ‘Settlement’ to mean, amongst others, a non-testamentary disposition of property for the purpose of distributing the property of the settler among his family. Black’s Law Dictionary defines ‘disposition’ as ‘the act of transferring something to the care or possession of another; or relinquishment or giving up of property’. ‘Disposition’, as observed in S.N.MATHUR1, is a term of wide import which encompasses any devise or mode by which property can pass and includes giving away or giving up by a person of something which was his own (see COMMISSIONER OF GIFT TAX, MADRAS V/s. N.S.GETTY CHETTIAR (1971) 2 SCC 741 ) and CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, ANDHRA PRADESH V/s. KANCHARLA KESAVA RAO (1973) 2 SCC 384 ). Though the petitioner is himself a beneficiary of the trust, he divested himself of his absolute rights in the settled property and the settlement was unconditionally made for the benefit and maintenance of his family members. There was thus a patent ‘disposition’ of his property and the document was clearly one falling under Article 49.A (a) of Schedule I-A to the Act of 1899. The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, initially understood this in the proper perspective as is evident from his Memo dated 18.06.2013, which reads as under: “Memo No.2825/G1/2013 Dt.18.06.2013 Sub: Regn. and Stamps – Pending Document No.P. 86/2013 – Computation of Stamp duty for settlement of immovable property in favour of private family trust – Clarification sought – Issued – Regarding. Ref: Lr.No.64/2013, Dt.01.06.2013 of S.R. Shamshabad. With reference to the letter cited, the Sub-Registrar is informed that the executants Sri. K.V.Raja Shekar had created a trust by name KGK Family Private Trust and Sri. V. Vinod Kumar S/o B. Pullaiah was made as a trustee for the administration of the said family trust and the executants setting and Extent of 31-00 Acres in different Sy. Nos. situated at Madanapally Village Shamshabad Mandal for the welfare and maintenance of his family members comprising of himself, wife and two sons and therefore it cannot be said that the property was settled in favour of Sri. Vasi Reddy Vinod Kumar S/o B.Pullaiah. Hence the Pending Document falls under article 49A(G) of Schedule IA to Indian Stamp Act. The Sub-Registrar is therefore directed to take action and admit the document if it is otherwise in order. Sd/- DISTRICT REGISTRAR RANGA REDDY DIST. Vasi Reddy Vinod Kumar S/o B.Pullaiah. Hence the Pending Document falls under article 49A(G) of Schedule IA to Indian Stamp Act. The Sub-Registrar is therefore directed to take action and admit the document if it is otherwise in order. Sd/- DISTRICT REGISTRAR RANGA REDDY DIST. To The Sub-Registrar Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District. NRK” Having appreciated that the trust was created as a family trust as the property was settled for the welfare and maintenance of the family members, comprising the settler, his wife and two sons, and that V.Vinod Kumar was only a trustee thereof, the District Registrar correctly opined that it could not be said that the property was settled in favour of V.Vinod Kumar. However, contradicting himself thereafter, the District Registrar observed that the pending document would fall under Article 49.A(b) of Schedule I-A to the Act of 1899. It appears that the District Registrar was himself in some doubt while coming to this conclusion as is evident from the overwriting in the Memo extracted supra. This overwriting is sought to be explained in the counter by stating that it was a typographical error. However, the inescapable fact remains that the first paragraph of the Memo contradicts the second paragraph. By the subject document the petitioner settled his absolute property in favour of a family trust created for himself, his wife and two sons. Though the petitioner adopted the methodology of creating an intervening family trust and thereafter settled the property on the trust, the fact remains that the settlement is essentially for distributing the property of the settler amongst his family members. The interpolation of the family trust would therefore not exclude the settlement effected under the subject document from the ambit of clause (a) of Article 49.A of Schedule I-A to the Act of 1899. On the above analysis, the writ petition is allowed. The Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad, shall treat the Settlement Deed, kept pending registration as Document No.P.86 of 2013, as one falling under Article 49.A(a) of Schedule I-A to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and collect stamp duty thereon accordingly. In the event the said document is found to otherwise fulfill the requirements of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad, shall complete the registration formalities and release the document in accordance with the due procedure. In the event the said document is found to otherwise fulfill the requirements of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad, shall complete the registration formalities and release the document in accordance with the due procedure. WPMP No.25397 of 2013 shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.