JUDGMENT : The petitioner is one of the co-owners of the property held jointly by the legal heirs and successors in interest of late Sri.Vallon and his wife, Kurumba. The property originally belonged to Erannoor Mana. Vallon held the property as 'verum pattamdar' under Erannoor Mana (illom). The right, title, and interest of the landlords, namely Erannoor Mana (illom) was later assigned in favour of the legal heirs and successors in interest of the original 'pattamdhar', namely, Vallon by virtue of the purchase certificate issued by the Special Tahsildar, Thrissur dated 24.5.2013. Ext.P1 is the purchase certificate. 2. Vallon married Kurumba. Two children were born out of the said wedlock namely, Kurumba and Thalary. Kurumba got married to Puthenchira Velayudhan and Thalary got married to Koran. Kurumba and Velayudhan had six children, namely Mohanan, Prasad, Sarada, Lalitha, Padmini, and Rajitha. Thalary and Koran had one son namely, Velayudhan. Velayudhan married Vally. They had two children, namely, Pratheesh and Pratheeja. 3. Vallon and his wife Kurumba died intestate. Similarly, Kurumba, Velayudhan and Thalary died intestate leaving behind their wife, children, and grandchildren to succeed to the estate left behind by their great grandfather. Since the properties were held in common by the parties, who are the co-owners, they decided to effect partition of the extent covered by Ext.P1 purchase certificate. Accordingly, a deed of partition was prepared in a stamp paper, worth Rs.1,000/-as provided under Sl. No. 42(a) of the Schedule attached to the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 which prescribes the payment of the stamp duty to the tune of Rs.1,000/-. According to the petitioner, the partition is among the members of the family and legal heirs of the deceased family members. Ext.P2 is the partition deed dated 19.1.2021. The petitioner in this writ petition is one of the parties in the above partition deed. The petitioner produced a family tree along with the writ petition as Ext.P3, which is extracted hereunder : FAMILY TREE OF THE CO-OWNERS Vallon & Kurumba (2 children) Kurumba (died) (died) Thalary Mohanan Prasad Sarada Lalitha Padmini Rajitha (6 children) Velayudhan (son) (died) Pratheesh (son) Pratheeja (daughter) Vally (wife) 4. The petitioner produced a family tree along with the writ petition as Ext.P3, which is extracted hereunder : FAMILY TREE OF THE CO-OWNERS Vallon & Kurumba (2 children) Kurumba (died) (died) Thalary Mohanan Prasad Sarada Lalitha Padmini Rajitha (6 children) Velayudhan (son) (died) Pratheesh (son) Pratheeja (daughter) Vally (wife) 4. When Ext.P2 partition deed was produced for registration, the 1st respondent refused to accept Ext.P2 partition deed stating that the parties to the deed of partition do not come within the definition of the word ‘family’ as defined under Sec.2(fb) of the Kerala Stamp Act and therefore, the stamp duty payable is not Rs.1,000/-. The petitioner on behalf of the other co-owners approached the office of the 3rd respondent in accordance with Sec.31 of the Stamp Act, requesting to adjudicate the proper stamp duty payable for the deed of partition. The 3rd respondent relegated the parties to appear before the 2nd respondent for adjudication. Ext.P4 is the request made by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent, after adjudication, passed Ext.P5 order in which, the 2nd respondent also concluded that the executants of the Ext.P2 partition deed will not come within the definition of Sec.2(fb) of the Stamp Act and therefore, the petitioner and the other co-owners should pay the stamp duty as per serial No.42(b) of the Schedule attached to the Kerala Stamp Act. Aggrieved by Ext.P5, this writ petition is filed. 5. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader. 6. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in the light of serial No.42(a) of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act r/w Sec. 2(fb) of the Stamp Act, the finding in Ext.P5 order is unsustainable. The counsel submitted that the words used in serial No.42(a) is members of the family and the legal heirs of the deceased family members. The counsel submitted that the word 'members of the family' used in serial No.42(a) of the Schedule to the Stamp Act takes in and includes father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, husband, wife, son, adopted son, daughter, adopted daughter, grandchildren, brothers, and sisters as per Sec.2(fb) of the Stamp Act. The counsel submitted that this is an inclusive definition that takes in each and every person narrated in the said definition, especially, the wife, children, and grandchildren, who are the co-owners. The counsel submitted that this is an inclusive definition that takes in each and every person narrated in the said definition, especially, the wife, children, and grandchildren, who are the co-owners. The submission of the counsel is that on a plain reading of the definition of 'family' in sec.2(fb) of the Stamp Act when read along with serial No.42(a) of the Schedule, it is very clear that, when the partition is among the members of the family (co-owners) the parties to the deed of partition would come within the definition of the word ‘family’. The counsel also relied the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Abdul Muneer and anr. v. Sub-Registrar, Tirur and others [ 2018 (1) KLT 238 ]. The counsel relied on paragraphs 20 and 25 of the Full Bench decision and submitted that the same is in favour of the petitioner. The counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court in Janu K.K. v. Sub-Registrar, Kadirur and anr. [ 2015 (1) KLT 109 ] and Rukmini Bai v. District Registrar [2012 (4) KLT SN 133] (Case No.125). The counsel for the petitioner also contended that there is an amendment to Sl.No.42(a) of the Schedule to the Stamp Act. The counsel submitted that there is a marked difference between the unamended Sl.No. 42(a) and the amended Sl.No. 42(a) of the Stamp Act. The counsel submitted that the explanation to Sl.No. 42(a) was deleted after the amendment and Sec.2(fb) is added subsequently. The contention of the petitioner is that in the amended Sl.No. 42(a), the words used is “where the partition is among all or any of the members of the family”. According to the counsel, the unamended Sl.No. 42 (a) reads : “where the partition is among all or some of the family members". Therefore, the counsel submitted that there is a difference in the words "some of the family members" used in Sl.No. 42(a) in the unamended portion and "any of the members of the family" mentioned in the amended Sl.No. 42(a) of the Stamp Act. It is also contended by the counsel that since the words "legal heirs of the deceased family members, if any" is added in Sl No.42(a) of the schedule, the intention of the legislature is clear that, it wants to expand the definition to include all those persons including the legal heirs of the deceased family members. It is also contended by the counsel that since the words "legal heirs of the deceased family members, if any" is added in Sl No.42(a) of the schedule, the intention of the legislature is clear that, it wants to expand the definition to include all those persons including the legal heirs of the deceased family members. Therefore, the counsel submitted that all the executants in Ext.P2 partition deed will come within the purview of the definition of family under Sec.2(fb) of the Stamp Act. The counsel submitted that the Full Bench of this Court in Abdul Muneer's case (supra) considered the unamended Sl.No. 42(a) of the Stamp Act. Therefore, the counsel submitted that the dictum laid down in the Full Bench decision is not directly applicable to the present case. Therefore, the counsel submitted that Ext.P5 order is unsustainable. 7. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit. Based on the counter affidavit, the Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P5 order passed by the 2nd respondent is perfectly legal. The Government Pleader submitted that Sl.No. 42(a) of the Kerala Stamp Act says that where the partition is among all or any of the members of the family and legal heirs of the deceased family members, if any, then only, the reduced stamp duty will be applicable. The Government Pleader submitted that Sec.2(fb) of the Stamp Act clearly defines the word 'family'. The Government Pleader contends that, if any of the members of the family defined in Sec.2(fb) died, then the legal heirs joined in the partition deed would not fall within the definition of Sl.No.42(a). According to the Government Pleader, in Ext.P2 partition deed, the parties in the documents have joint ownership in the property, but it cannot be considered as ‘one family’. The Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P2 partition deed is between the legal heirs only. Ext.R2(a), an order passed by the Land Revenue Commissioner is also produced to show that the contention of the petitioner will not stand. Therefore, the Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P5 order is perfectly legal and the petitioner and the other executants in Ext.P2 partition deed are not entitled to the benefit of Sl.No. 42(a) of the Stamp Act. The Government Pleader also relied on the judgment of the Full Bench in Abdul Muneer's case (supra). The Government Pleader relied upon paragraph Nos. Therefore, the Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P5 order is perfectly legal and the petitioner and the other executants in Ext.P2 partition deed are not entitled to the benefit of Sl.No. 42(a) of the Stamp Act. The Government Pleader also relied on the judgment of the Full Bench in Abdul Muneer's case (supra). The Government Pleader relied upon paragraph Nos. 24 and 25 of the Full Bench decision and submitted that those observations will clinch the issue. The Government Pleader submitted that even though there is an amendment to Sl.No. 42(a) of the Stamp Act, the observation in paragraph Nos. 24 and 25 of the Full Bench decision will cover the issue in this writ petition. 8. The short point to be considered in this case is whether the executants in Ext.P2 partition deed will cover the ‘family’ definition mentioned in Sec.2(fb) of the Stamp Act. There is an amendment to Sl.No. 42(a) of the Stamp Act. Therefore, it will be better to extract Sl.No. 42(a) of the Stamp Act before the amendment and after the amendment. Unamended Sl.No. 42(a) of the Stamp Act Amended Sl.No. 42(a) of the Stamp Act 42. Partition – Instrument of (as defined by section 2(k) (i) Where the partition is among all or some of the family members (ii) in any other case [Explanation – Family means father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, husband, wife, son, daughter, grandchildren, brother, sister and legal heirs of the deceased children, if any, as the case may be.] [One rupee for every rupees 100 or part thereof of the fair value of the separated share or shares of land and the value of other properties in such separated share or shares set forth in the instrument or of the value of all the properties of the separated share or shares as set forth in the instrument, whichever is higher, subject to a maximum of rupees 1000] [Six rupees for every rupees 100 or part thereof of the amount of the value or fair value of the separated share or shares of the property, whichever is higher] 42. Partition – Instrument of (as defined by section 2(k) (i) Where the partition is among all or any of the members of the family and legal heirs of the deceased family member, if any (b) in any other case [Fifteen rupee for every rupees 10,000 or part thereof of the fair value of the separated share or shares of land and the value of other properties in such separated share or shares set forth in the instrument or of the value of all the properties of the separated share or shares as set forth in the instrument, whichever is higher, subject to a minimum of rupees 1000]. [Six rupees for every rupees 100 or part thereof of the amount of the value or fair value of the separated share or shares of the property, whichever is higher] 9. A comparison of the unamended Sl.No. 42(a) and the amended Sl.No. 42(a), demonstrates that there is no substantial difference between them. Sl.No. 42(a) originally says that where the “partition is among all or some of the family members”. After the amendment, it states “where the partition is among all or any of the members of the family and legal heirs of the family member, if any”. The only difference is “all or some of the family members” is changed to “all or any of the family members and legal heirs of the family members”. Explanation to Sl.No. 42(a) in the unamended portion is actually inserted as Sec.2(fb) of the Stamp Act. There also, there is not much difference between the amended portion and unamended portion. Explanation to Sl.No.42 (deleted) Section 2 (fb) of Stamp Act. Family means father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, husband, wife, son, daughter, grandchildren, brother, sister and legal heirs of the deceased children, if any, as the case may be “Family” means father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, husband, wife, son, adopted son, daughter, adopted daughter, grandchildren, brother and sister 10. In the amended portion, two more categories are included within the definition of ‘family’ and they are ‘adopted son’ and ‘adopted daughter’. All other categories in Sec.2(fb) are the same categories mentioned in the explanation to Sl.No. 42(a) of the Stamp Act, which was in force before the amendment. Moreover, the legal heirs of the deceased children, which was present in the explanation to the unamended Sl.No. 42(a) is not there in Sec.2(fb), but it is inserted into the amended Sl.No.42(a). All other categories in Sec.2(fb) are the same categories mentioned in the explanation to Sl.No. 42(a) of the Stamp Act, which was in force before the amendment. Moreover, the legal heirs of the deceased children, which was present in the explanation to the unamended Sl.No. 42(a) is not there in Sec.2(fb), but it is inserted into the amended Sl.No.42(a). 11. The main contention of the petitioner is that the amended portion of Sl.No.42(a) of the Schedule to the Stamp Act says that the partition is among all or any of the members of the family and the legal heirs of the deceased family. Therefore, the counsel submitted that the legal heirs of the deceased family members are also included after the amendment in Sl.No.42(a) of the Schedule to the Stamp Act. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is entitled to reduced stamp duty as per Sl.No.42(a). 12. I am not in a position to accept the above contention of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner may look attractive. However, in the light of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Abdul Muneer's case, the above contention cannot be accepted. The Full Bench considered the definition of 'family', which is mentioned in the explanation to Sl.No.42(a). The explanation to Sl.No.42(a) says family means father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, husband, wife, son, daughter, grandchildren, brother, sister, and legal heirs of deceased children. After the amendment, explanation to Sl.No. 42(a) is deleted and Sec.2(fb) is inserted. It is true that in Sec.2(fb), the legal heirs of the deceased children is omitted and adopted daughter and son are inserted. But, when Sl.No.42(a) was amended, the missing portion in the explanation namely, the legal heirs of deceased children are added in Sl.No.42(a) itself, which reads : "Where the partition is among all or any of the members of the family and legal heirs of the deceased family". The Full Bench of this Court considered the explanation to Sl.No.42 of the unamended Act. The relevant portion of the Full Bench decision is extracted hereunder : “24. The conclusion of the Division Bench as above, we regrettably say, do not appear to be in proper perspective of the specific provisions of Art.42 and its Explanation. The Full Bench of this Court considered the explanation to Sl.No.42 of the unamended Act. The relevant portion of the Full Bench decision is extracted hereunder : “24. The conclusion of the Division Bench as above, we regrettably say, do not appear to be in proper perspective of the specific provisions of Art.42 and its Explanation. When the Explanation specifies a family for the purpose of Art. 42(1) to mean father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, husband, wife, son, daughter, grandchildren, brother, sister and the legal heirs of deceased children, then only those co-owners of a property who are related to one another in one of the specific and enumerated relationships, at the time of execution of the partition deed, would obtain the benefit of a lower stamp duty under Art.42(1) of the Schedule to the Act. To illustrate, take the case of two brothers. Since brothers fall into the categories of relationships in the Explanation, a partition between them would attract a lower stamp duty under Art.42(1). However, this position will get altered when one of the brothers die and his son/daughter inherits the share. Theson/daughter of the deceased brother stand in the relationship of nephew/niece with the surviving brother of their father. The relationship of uncle, nephew/niece are not included in the enumerated relationships in the Explanation. Hence a deed of partition between them would not obtain the benefit under Art.42(1). For further illustration, take the case of a father and two sons. A partition deed among them would certainly be eligible to the benefit of lower stamp duty under Art.42(1). Now, assume that one of the sons die and that his son inherits his share. When this happens, the family consists of a grandfather, son and a grandson. The relationship of a grandson with the son is that of the uncle and nephew and a partition solely between them would take the deed out of the reach of Art.42(1). However, since he is a grandchild in his relationship with the grandfather and since the other two are father and son in their relationship, a partition among three of them would be within the precincts of Art.42(1) should the grandfather die leaving the other two, such benefit would again terminate, since the surviving members are positioned to each other as uncle and nephew. 25. 25. Hence, to assess the eligibility for reduction of stamp duty in Art. 42(1), what is to be seen is the relationship between the co owners at the time of execution of the partition deed. If each of the co-owner is related to at least one of the other in the enumerated categories of relationships prescribed in the Explanation of Art. 42, then the partition deed between them would become deserving of lower stamp duty under sub-clause (1) of the said Article. Considerations of common lineage, devolution of property etc., are a irrelevant for this purpose and a that becomes relevant for the purpose of Art.42(1) is the relationship of the co-owners at the time of execution and registration of the partition deed. If the co-owners are several in number, then the benefit under this Article would flow only if each of such co owner is related at least to one other through the specified category of relationships as is prescribed in the Explanation to Art.42. This, in our opinion, is the only way the explanation to the Article can be interpreted. Obviously therefore, the conclusions in Manuel (supra) and in Jose (supra) are not correct and we are, therefore, constrained to hold so. However, we do not propose to unsettle any rights that have been already created and vested prior to this judgment. We clarify that the findings in this judgment would only apply to partition deeds that are executed and presented for registration before the concerned Sub Registrars from this date onwards and that all such deeds registered prior to this date would not be affected by anything stated and found by us herein.”(Emphasis supplied) 13. From the above decision of the Full Bench, it is clear that the son/daughter of the deceased brother stands in the relationship of nephew/niece with the surviving brother of their family. The Full Bench observed that the relationship of the uncle, nephew, niece is not included in the enumerated relationships in the explanation. Therefore, it is clear that, if the co-owners are several in number, then the benefit under the Sl.No 42 would flow only if each of such co-owner is related atleast to one other through the specified category of relationship mentioned in Sl.No 42. Therefore, it is clear that, if the co-owners are several in number, then the benefit under the Sl.No 42 would flow only if each of such co-owner is related atleast to one other through the specified category of relationship mentioned in Sl.No 42. The Full Bench also considered an illustration of a father and two sons and observed that a partition deed among them would certainly be eligible to the benefit of a lower stamp duty under Sl.No. 42(1). But the Full Bench assumed that if one of the sons dies and then his son inherits his share, the family then consists of a grandfather, son and the grandson. The relationship of a grandson with the son is that of the uncle and nephew and a partition solely between them would take the deed out of the reach of Sl.No. 42(1). Moreover, the Full Bench considered the legal effect of the explanation to Sl.No.42(a) to the Schedule of the Stamp Act in detail. In the explanation, the category of 'legal heirs of the deceased children' was present. The Full Bench considered the case when "the legal heirs of the deceased children” are there in the Explanation, and even then held that, the parties to that case will not come within the purview of Sl.No. 42(1) and they are not entitled to the lower stamp duty. As I said earlier, even though the explanation to Sl.No.42(1) was deleted and in Sec.2(fb) "the legal heirs of the deceased children" are not there, the same category is included in Sl.No.42(a) itself. In such circumstances, the finding of the Full Bench is binding on this Court. The explanation given by the Full Bench in para No.24 will squarely apply in this case also. 14. If we go through the family tree produced in the writ petition as Ext.P3, it is clear that the executants of Ext. P2 partition deed are the children of Kurumba and the children of Velayudhan. If the partition deed was between Kurumba and Thalary, Sl.No.42(a) may be applicable. Here is a case where the children of Kurumba and the grandchildren of Thalary are the executants in Ext.P2. In such circumstances, according to me, the point is covered by the decision of the Full Bench. Hence I am not in a position to accept the contention of the petitioner. 15. Here is a case where the children of Kurumba and the grandchildren of Thalary are the executants in Ext.P2. In such circumstances, according to me, the point is covered by the decision of the Full Bench. Hence I am not in a position to accept the contention of the petitioner. 15. Once again, if we go through the family tree produced as Ext.P3, it is clear that Mohanan, Prasad, Sarada, Lalitha, Padmini and Rajitha are the children of Kurumba, who is the daughter of the couple, Vallon and Kurumba. The other executants in Ext.P2 partition deed are Pratheesh, Pratheeja and Vally. They are the legal heirs of Velayudhan and Velayudhan is the only son of Thalary, who is the daughter of the couple, Vallon and Kurumba. Therefore, the partition is not between the Kurumba and Thalary, who are the children of Vallon and Kurumba. If that is the case, the benefit of Sl.No. 42(a) of the Stamp Act is available. But, here is a case where the executants in Ext.P2 are the grandchildren of Vallon and Kurumba and great grandchildren of the above couple. In other words, Pratheesh, Pratheeja and Vally are the legal heirs of Velayudhan and Velayudhan is the son of Thalary and Thalary is the daughter of Vallon and Kurumba. Mohanan, Prasad, Sarada, Lalitha, Padmini and Rajitha are the children of Kurumba and Kurumba is the daughter of Vallon and Kurumba. In such circumstances, in the light of the specific observation in the Full Bench decision in paragraph Nos.24 and 25, I am not in a position to accept the contention of the petitioner. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is perfectly justified in issuing Ext.P5 order. 16. The counsel indeed relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Abdul Khader v. Sub Registrar, Malappuram [ 2020 (3) KLT 569 ]. There also, the facts are different. In that case, the writ petition was filed by the son of one Komukutty. Komukutty had children in two wives. The property sought to be partitioned belongs to Komukutty. When the writ petitioner and his other siblings wanted to effect partition of the properties left behind by their father, the respondent-Sub Registrar refused to register the partition deed, presented by the writ petitioner, treating that the descendants of two wives cannot constitute a family. Komukutty had children in two wives. The property sought to be partitioned belongs to Komukutty. When the writ petitioner and his other siblings wanted to effect partition of the properties left behind by their father, the respondent-Sub Registrar refused to register the partition deed, presented by the writ petitioner, treating that the descendants of two wives cannot constitute a family. But, this Court after considering the Full Bench decision observed that the writ petitioner and other children of Komukutty born in the wedlock of Komukutty and two wives have a common lineage of Komukutty and they are his sons and daughters belonging to one family and not two different branches of a family. Therefore, this Court observed that it is clear from the definition of a family provided in Sec.2(fb) of the Act that it would also take in wife, son, daughter, brother and sister. But, the facts in the present writ petition are entirely different. In such circumstances, according to me, they will not come within the definition of family defined in Sec.2(fb) of the Stamp Act, because the executants are the grandchildren and great grandchildren through Kurumba and Thalary. Therefore, the stand taken by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P5 is perfectly, justifiable. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with Ext.P5 order. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed.