JUDGMENT : The 1st petitioner executed Ext.P1 assignment deed dated 18.2.2008 in favour of petitioners 2 to 4, who are his children, assigning 18.85 cents of land in Sy.No.28/6, 2 cents in Sy.No.54/9, 38 cents in Sy.No.29/5 and 85 cents in Sy.No.24/7 of Klari Amsom in Tirurangadi Taluk in Malappuram district. The consideration shown in Ext.P1 assignment deed is Rs. 1,00,000/- and it is recited therein that the consideration for the transaction is adjusted towards the value of ornaments belonging to the mother of petitioners 2 to 4, appropriated by the 1st petitioner. 2. When Ext.P1 document was presented for registration, the Sub Registrar, Kottakkal, the 2nd respondent herein, raised an objection that the transaction involves a gift and then an assignment. As such, the total consideration will have to be taken as Rs. 2,00,000/- and the 1st petitioner has to pay stamp duty for a further consideration Rs. 1,00,000/-, for registration of Ext.P1 document. Since the 1st petitioner was not prepared to pay stamp duty for a further consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/-, the 2nd respondent impounded Ext.P1 document under Section 33(1) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (for brevity 'the Act') and sent it to the District Collector, Malappuram, the 1st respondent herein, under Section 37(2) of the Act. 3. The 1st respondent, after considering the report of the 2nd respondent, issued Ext.P2 order dated 28.3.2008, in exercise of his powers under Section 39(1)(b) of the Act, holding that Ext.P1 document is not duly stamped and as such, the 1st petitioner is required to pay a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards stamp duty together with a fine of Rs. 50/-, within a period of 14 days, failing which the said amount will be recovered by initiating revenue recovery proceedings. 4. Challenging Ext.P2 order, the petitioners filed Ext.P3 appeal before the District Court, Manjeri. When the said appeal came up for hearing, an objection as to its maintainability was raised. The petitioners, as advised by their counsel, filed I.A.No.166/2009 seeking permission to withdraw C.M.A.No.9/2008 with liberty to approach this Court challenging Ext.P2 order. Accordingly the said C.M.A. was dismissed as withdrawn by Ext.P4 order dated 5.3.2009. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 order and for a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to effect registration of Ext.P1 document without insisting additional stamp duty and penalty. 5. Accordingly the said C.M.A. was dismissed as withdrawn by Ext.P4 order dated 5.3.2009. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 order and for a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to effect registration of Ext.P1 document without insisting additional stamp duty and penalty. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent contending that, the 2nd respondent, vide his report dated 13.3.2008, forwarded to the 1st respondent, Ext.P1 document impounded as per Section 33(1) of the Act. As per Section 39(1)(b) of the Act, the 1st respondent is the authority to determine the required stamp duty for a document and accordingly the said respondent held in Ext.P2 that Ext.P1 document is liable to be charged with a stamp duty of Rs. 20,000/-. Accordingly, the petitioners were directed to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 10,000/- and a fine of Rs. 50/-. 6. In the counter affidavit, the 1st respondent would contend that, going by Section 5 of Act, for an instrument recording more than one transaction, as listed in the schedule, the stamp duty required for each transaction should be remitted. Ext.P1 document records two transactions. Though Ext.P1 document appears to be an instrument of conveyance executed by the 1st petitioner in favour of petitioners 2 to 4, it also records the intention of one Nafeesa Hajumma (wife of the 1st petitioner and the mother of petitioners 2 to 4) to gift the said properties in favour of petitioners 2 to 4. The 1st petitioner has admitted the receipt of consideration from Nafeesa Hajumma and he is executing Ext.P1 document for fulfilling her intention to gift the said properties in favour of petitioners 2 to 4. Since the intention of Nafeesa Hajumma, who is not a party to Ext.P1 has been recorded in the said document, it attracts stamp duty as per Schedule 31 of the Act, in addition to the stamp duty already remitted as per Schedule 21 of the Act. The 1st respondent has also raised a contention that, if the petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P2 they have got an opportunity to approach the Land Revenue Commissioner, who is the appellate authority. The petitioners, having failed to avail the appellate remedy, are not entitled to seek reliefs in this writ petition. 7. The 1st respondent has also raised a contention that, if the petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P2 they have got an opportunity to approach the Land Revenue Commissioner, who is the appellate authority. The petitioners, having failed to avail the appellate remedy, are not entitled to seek reliefs in this writ petition. 7. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 8. Section 5 of the Kerala Stamp Act provides that any instrument comprising or relating to several distinct matters shall be chargeable with the aggregate amount of the duties with which separate instruments, each comprising or relating to one of such matters, would be chargeable under the said Act. Section 5 of the Kerala Stamp Act corresponds to Section 5 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Similarly, Sections 4 and 6 of the Kerala Stamp Act deals with 'single transaction completed in several instruments' and 'single transaction which will fall within several descriptions in the schedule', respectively, which corresponds to Sections 4 and 6 of the Indian Stamp Act. 9. In Board of Revenue v. Arthur Paul Benthall ( AIR 1956 SC 35 ), in the context of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that Section 4 of the said Act deals with a single transaction completed in several instruments and Section 6 with a single transaction which might be viewed as falling under more than one category, whereas Section 5 applies only when the instrument comprises more than one transaction, and it is immaterial for this purpose whether those transactions are of the same category or of different categories. The topics dealt with in the three Sections being thus different, no useful purpose will be served by referring to Section 4 or Section 6 for determining the scope of Section 5 or for construing its terms. It is not without significance that the legislature has used three different words in relation to the three Sections, 'transaction' in Section 4, 'matter' in Section 5 and 'description' in Section 6. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Chief Controlling Revenue Authority v. Coastal Gujarat Power Limited ( 2015 (10) SCC 700 ), in the context of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958. 10. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Chief Controlling Revenue Authority v. Coastal Gujarat Power Limited ( 2015 (10) SCC 700 ), in the context of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958. 10. In the instant case, though Ext.P1 document appears to be an instrument of conveyance executed by the 1st petitioner in favour of petitioners 2 to 4, who are his children, the said instrument also records the intention of Nafeesa Hajumma (wife of the 1st petitioner and mother of petitioners 2 to 4) to gift the said properties in favour of petitioners 2 to 4. 11. In Essar Oil Ltd. v. Intelligence Officer (2010(4) KHC 239), a Division Bench of this Court held that consideration for contract can always flow from a third party. 12. In Ext.P1 document, the 1st petitioner has admitted the receipt of consideration from his wife, which is adjusted towards the value of the ornaments appropriated and he has executed the said document in favour of petitioners 2 to 4 for fulfilling her intention to gift the said properties in favour of petitioners 2 to 4. Therefore, it is not a case in which the 1st respondent has executed Ext.P1 assignment in favour of petitioners 2 to 4 after receiving consideration from Nafeesa Hajumma. On the other hand, after receiving consideration from Nafeesa Hajumma, the 1st petitioner has executed Ext.P1 assignment deed in favour of petitioners 2 to 4 in order to fulfil her intention to gift the said properties in favour of petitioners 2 to 4. Since the intention of Nafeesa Hajumma, who is not a party to Ext.P1 document to gift the properties to petitioners 2 to 4 has been recorded in the said document, it attracts stamp duty as per Schedule 31 of the Act in addition to the stamp duty already paid as per Schedule 21 of the Act. 13. Relying on the decision in Suryanarayanamurty v. Satyanarayanaraju (1956 Andhra 252), the learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that, even if Ext.P1 document contained two distinct matters, i.e., assignment and gift, the latter matter is only ancillary to the main object and as such, when the instrument embodying the main object was duly stamped, no further stamp duty would be payable for the ancillary matter. 14. 14. In the instant case, as I have already noticed, Ext.P1 assignment deed executed by the 1st petitioner in favour of petitioners 2 to 4 on receipt of consideration from Nafeesa Hajumma, who is not a party to the said document, records her intention to gift the said properties in favour of petitioners 2 to 4, which can only be treated as a distinct matter independent of the other, attracting additional stamp duty under Schedule 31 of the Act. Therefore, the principles laid down in the said decision in no manner supports the case of the petitioners. 15. In such circumstances, the reasoning of the 1st respondent in Ext.P2 order is perfectly legal, which warrants no interference in this Writ Petition. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.