JUDGMENT K.L. Manjunath, J.—These appeals are preferred by the writ petitioners and State, being not satisfied with the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 33760/2009, dated 24.03.2010. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The facts of the case are as hereunder: The writ petitioner Sanjay Bhasin and Mohit Bhasin have purchased separate floors along with, undivided half share in the site independently, as per Annexures-A and B to the writ petition under a registered sale deed dated 04.09.1995. The petitioners did not purchase each of the floors jointly and they purchased separately in their individual capacity. On the site in question there exists ground floor and a first floor. First floor portion has been purchased by Mohit Bhasin and ground floor is purchased by Sanjay Bhasin. Thereafter, they obtained a joint katha in respect of both the floors. 3. On 31.12.2004, the registered released deed came to be presented before the Sub-Registrar, Rajajinagar, Bangalore, wherein the second petitioner Mohit Bhasin relinquished his first floor in favour of Sanjay Bhasin. The sub-Registrar raised an objection stating that the said document attracts the stamp duty as enumerated under Article-45(a) and contended that the stamp duty has to be paid treating it as a conveyance as required under Article-20(1) of the Karnataka Stamp Act. Accordingly, the parties were called upon to pay the deficit stamp duty and registration fee, and the matter was referred for adjudication of the stamp duty. 4. The District Registrar by his order dated 21.11.2006 held that it amounts to conveyance and not a release, accordingly parties were directed to pay the stamp duty. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal came to be preferred before the Regional Commissioner, Bangalore in Case No. PAK/STP (A) 11/2007-08, which appeal came to be rejected, confirming the order of the District Registrar. Challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below, the writ petition, came to be filed. 5. The learned single Judge after hearing the parties allowed the writ petition in part treating the documents as release deed and that it attracts stamp duty under Article-45(a). Being not satisfied with the order of the learned single Judge, the petitioners have filed the present appeal contending that it comes within the provisions of Article-45(b) and not under Article-45(a) as ordered by the learned single Judge. 6. Being not satisfied with the order of the learned single Judge, the petitioners have filed the present appeal contending that it comes within the provisions of Article-45(b) and not under Article-45(a) as ordered by the learned single Judge. 6. Similarly the State has preferred an appeal contending that the learned single Judge has committed an error in holding documents as release and filed the appeal contending that the writ petitioners are required to pay the stamp duty as on the date of amendment to Article-41(a) of Karnataka Stamp Act. Therefore, these matters are heard together. 7. Having heard the counsel for the parties, and on perusal of the Release Deed and other documents produced by the writ petitioner, we are of the opinion that both the writ petitioners have purchased ground and first floor under two separate registered documents and there is nothing on record to show that these two petitioners purchased the property jointly on behalf of the joint family. But the fact remains that they are the brothers. 8. On perusal of the material, it is clear that a brother is entitled to release the property in favour of another brother. If a brother has released the property in favour of the another brother it cannot be considered as conveyance as per the provisions of Article-20 of the Karnataka Stamp Act. Therefore, we are of the view that when a brother has released a property in favour of the another brother, the said documents cannot be treated as conveyance. 9. Then the question would be whether the stamp duty to be calculated by the Deputy Commissioner shall be based on the market value on the date of the presentation of the release date or on the date of adjudication of the authority, in view of the amendment. The original proceedings has commenced on the date on which the document was presented for registration. As on the date of registration the parties were required to pay the stamp duty and registration fee. Because whenever a dispute arises in regard to the nature of the documents the matter has to be referred for adjudication before the District Registrar. The original proceedings has commenced on the date on which the document was presented for registration. As on the date of registration the parties were required to pay the stamp duty and registration fee. Because whenever a dispute arises in regard to the nature of the documents the matter has to be referred for adjudication before the District Registrar. If there is a delay in considering the nature of the document by the District Registrar or if any appeal is filed by the aggrieved person on account of pendency of the matter before the competent court, the Government cannot be permitted to contend that the document would attract the stamp duty in terms of the amendment of the Karnataka Stamp Act. Because if the sub-Registrar has not referred the matter for adjudication to the District Registrar, at best the sub-Registrar could have permitted the parties to pay the stamp duty in accordance with Article-45(a) of the Karnataka Stamp Act based on the value of the date of presentation of the document. If such a demand was made by him, there was an opportunity for the writ petitioner to pay the same but on account of the pendency of the matter before various authorities. If the act has been substituted by way of amendment, this Court is of the opinion that the Government cannot be permitted to contend that the parties are required to pay the stamp duty in terms of the amendment. If we accept such a contention, the Government has to reopen the case of all the registered documents and the deficit stamp duty has to be collected from all the persons whose transaction's have been completed. Accordingly, we do not see any merits in the appeal filed by the State. In the result, both the appeals are disposed of holding that the documents presented for registration has to be considered as release deed attracting provisions of Section-45(a) of the Karnataka Stamp Act as on the date of the presentation of the document.