JUDGMENT : A release deed executed among the members of a family was presented before the Sub Registrar, Mattancherry. The Sub Registrar refused to register the deed holding that the stamp duty paid was deficient. It was opined that except petitioners 1 and 5 the rest of the parties to the deed would not come within the purview of the term ‘family’ as defined under Section 2(b) of the Stamp Act, 1959 and that the fee to be paid was to be paid in accordance with Article 48(c) insofar as the release deed operates with respect to the petitioners 2 to 4. The petitioners were directed to represent the deed after remitting the requisite stamp and registration fee and by producing the Legal heirship Certificate, Possession Certificate and also the original of the title deed. 2. Sri.G.Krishna Kumar, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioners 1 and 5 are the children of late Sri.K.V.Augustine and Treesa. He would refer to the relationship certificate produced as Ext.P3 and he would contend that late Sri.K.V.Augustine had 7 children namely, Alice, Mary Johny, Celine, Juliet, Antony, Franklin and Henry. Juliet, Antony, Franklin and Henry are no more. The 2nd petitioner herein, Sri.Thomas John is the son of Juliet. The petitioners 3 and 4 are the children of Antony. The legal heirs of Franklin and Henry are residing in the property. All the children of Augustine have ? share each over the property. It was for amassing the necessary funds for the marriage of the granddaughter of the 1st petitioner that she decided to execute the release deed in favour of the 5th petitioner, her sister. The petitioners 2 to 4 have also decided to release their 1/6 right each in favour of the 5th petitioner. It is contended that since the legal heirs of Franklin and Henry are residing in the property covered under the release deed, the petitioners cannot justifiably produce the possession certificate. He would contend that there was no justification in insisting that the legal heirship certificate should be produced as there is no such requirement under the Statute. According to the learned counsel, Ext.P3 relationship certificate issued by the revenue authority clearly would reveal that the petitioners 1 and 5 are the daughters of Sri.K.V.Augustine and the rest of the petitioners are the legal heirs of the other children. According to the learned counsel, Ext.P3 relationship certificate issued by the revenue authority clearly would reveal that the petitioners 1 and 5 are the daughters of Sri.K.V.Augustine and the rest of the petitioners are the legal heirs of the other children. It is further contended that the original deed is also retained with the legal heirs of Franklin and Henry who are residing in the property and hence there cannot be any insistence that the original title deed should be produced. The learned counsel would further contend that insofar as the insistence made by the Sub Registrar as regards the applicability of Article 48(b) to the Schedule of the Stamp Act, 1959 insofar as it concerns the release by petitioners 2 to 4, the same is in accordance with law and he has no objection. He states that the shortfall of Rs.1,28,971/- of which Rs.1,14,303/-towards stamp duty and Rs.14,668/-towards registration fees shall be paid. 3. Smt.Mable C Kurian, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the registration was refused as the petitioners insisted that the release deed was liable to be registered under Article 48(a) of the Schedule. It is contended that the benefit of Article 48(a) can be extended only to the 1st petitioner. Now that the petitioners have come forward consenting to remit the deficient stamp and registration fee, appropriate action shall be taken is the submission. It is further contended that the petitioners are bound to produce the death certificates of the deceased and the legal heirship certificate to substantiate that they are in fact entitled to execute the release deed. It is contended that the petitioners are bound to produce the original title deed, the tax receipt/possession certificate etc. to prove that they are in ownership over the property. 4. I find that the relationship certificate issued by the revenue authorities clearly shows that Augustine, Treesa, Celin, Antony, Juliet, Franklin and Henry are no more. The relationship between the parties are also stated therein. When the petitioners contend that they are residing elsewhere and that the legal heirs of Franklin and Henry are residing in the property, there cannot be any justification in insisting that even for executing a deed for releasing their rights, the petitioners should produce the possession certificate. The relationship between the parties are also stated therein. When the petitioners contend that they are residing elsewhere and that the legal heirs of Franklin and Henry are residing in the property, there cannot be any justification in insisting that even for executing a deed for releasing their rights, the petitioners should produce the possession certificate. The learned Government Pleader has relied on Section 34(3) of the Registration Act, 1908 and Rule 191 in Chapter XXIII of the Registration Rules, (Kerala) to substantiate that the registering officer was well justified in insisting upon the production of those records. All that Section 34(3) says is that the registering officer shall enquire whether or not such document was executed by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed to satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing before him and alleging that they have executed the document and if a person is appearing as a representative, assignee or agent satisfy himself of the right of such person so to appear. In other words, the registering authority can of course insist upon the petitioners to produce records to satisfy himself about the identity of the person who had appeared before him. Rule 191 will also not enable the registering officer to refuse to register the document on the above grounds. Resultantly, the following directions are issued. (a) Insofar as the release executed by the 1st petitioner to the 5th petitioner is concerned, Article 48(a) of the Schedule to the Stamp Act would be attracted and the party shall be entitled to concessional stamp duty. (b) The release executed by petitioners 2 to 4 in favour of the 5th petitioner would attract Article 48(c) of the Schedule to the Stamp Act. If the shortfall towards deficient stamp duty and registration fees is paid, the registering officer shall proceed to register the deed. (c) The petitioners shall produce identification proof to satisfy the registering officer as to the identity of the persons appearing before him and stating to have executed the document. The registering officer shall not insist on production of legal heirship certificate and in its place accept Ext.P3 relationship certificate issued by the revenue authorities. The production of the original of the title deed or possession certificate shall not be insisted with. This Writ Petition is disposed of.