ORDER : This writ petition is filed for issuing a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st respondent in D.Dis.No.28388/P1/2013 dated 11/2/2014, quash the same as illegal and non-est and consequently, for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to give regular number in the Book-1 register of the respondent 3 in respect of Release Deed dated 19/12/2011 registered as pending Document No.98/2011 in the office of the 3rd respondent by treating it as a Release Deed falling under Article 55A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, release and return the said release deed to the petitioner. 2. The brief facts that are necessary to dispose of the writ petition are as follows : The petitioner is the son of Late T. Venkatesan. The subject matter of the writ petition is a Plot bearing No.143, Door No.15, Velunachiyar Street, M.G.R. Nagar, Chennai - 600 078. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the subject matter of this writ petition, may be referred to as 'plot'. Petitioner's father was allotted the said plot and he was in enjoyment and the allotment was by way of a Lease-cum-Sale Agreement dated 02.01.1985. As per the arrangement, the petitioner's father was to get a sale deed upon payment of all the installments, as per the terms of the lease cum sale agreement dated 02.01.1985. 3. It is admitted that the petitioner's father died on 11.4.2005 leaving behind the petitioner's mother, petitioner, petitioner's brother and petitioner's sister, as his legal heirs. After the death of petitioner's father, the allotment was transferred in favour of petitioner's mother, as a heir of petitioner's father by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board. By proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board dated 09.09.2008, a direction was issued for cancelling the allotment in favour of petitioner's father and to transfer the allotment in favour of petitioner's mother. The proceedings dated 09.09.2008 refers to the manner of transfer in the following lines: 4. It is admitted before this court that the balance amount towards installments was collected. After collecting the entire amount, a sale deed was executed in favour of petitioner's mother by a document dated 17.10.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner's mother, son and sister, by a Deed of Release dated 19.12.2011, relinquished their right in favour of the petitioner, for a consideration mentioned in the document. After collecting the entire amount, a sale deed was executed in favour of petitioner's mother by a document dated 17.10.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner's mother, son and sister, by a Deed of Release dated 19.12.2011, relinquished their right in favour of the petitioner, for a consideration mentioned in the document. As per the document, the mother, brother and sister of the petitioner, relinquished their right in favour of the petitioner in respect of northern 871 sq.ft. by receiving a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as consideration. The other sharers have factually relinquished their collective 3/4th undivided share in respect of northern 871 sq.ft. and their right over the said property, to and in favour of the petitioner. 5. When the document was presented for registration, the District Registrar issued a show-cause notice dated 5.11.2012 to the petitioner stating that why a sum of Rs.96,000/- cannot be collected from the petitioner by way of deficit stamp duty along with a sum of Rs.1,000/- as penalty. Since the sale deed was obtained in the name of petitioner's mother, it is stated that the petitioner has no prior interest and that therefore the release deed should be treated as a conveyance of title. Thereafter, the District Registrar, by proceedings dated 03.05.2013 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.97,000/- as mentioned in the show-cause notice. Challenging the order passed by the District Registrar dated 03.05.2013, the petitioner preferred a Revision before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority & Inspector General of Registration, Chennai - 600 028. By proceedings dated 11.2.2014, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority & Inspector General of Registration, Chennai - 600 028, dismissed the Revision preferred by the petitioner and confirmed the order of the District Registrar dated 03.05.2013. Challenging the orders of the respondents 1 and 2, the above writ petition is filed by the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after referring to the facts, submitted that the petitioner is only a co-owner and that therefore, under Article 55A of the Schedule to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the petitioner is liable to pay 1% as stamp duty. It is submitted that the release deed does not fall under Article 55C of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 or can be considered as a document of conveyance deed under Article 23 of the Schedule of Indian Stamp Act. It is submitted that the release deed does not fall under Article 55C of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 or can be considered as a document of conveyance deed under Article 23 of the Schedule of Indian Stamp Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement was in favour of petitioner's father and that the petitioner's mother was substituted only as a legal heir of petitioner's father and not as person to be acknowledged as exclusive owner in her individual capacity. Petitioner's counsel further submitted that the petitioner along with other legal heirs are entitled to equal share in the property that was allotted in favour of petitioner's father and that the sale deed obtained in the name of his mother will not take away the rights of other co-owners. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 3, it is stated that the writ petitioner did not have any pre-existing right over the property before the release deed was executed by the other legal representatives of the original allottee. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the mother of the petitioner, by virtue of the sale deed, took into her the exclusive right over the property and that the Release Deed cannot be treated as a release in favour of the family members. It is stated further that in the absence of any pre-existing right, the petitioner cannot claim himself to be a co-owner. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, in support of his contention, has relied on a Full Bench judgment of this court in Board of Revenue and Anr. vs. V.M.Murugesan Mudaliar reported in AIR 1955 Mad 641. The Full Bench of this court in the said judgment relied upon by the respondents, has ruled as follows : "6. In such a case there need be no conveyance as such by one of the co-owners in favour of the other co-owners. Each co-owner in theory is entitled to enjoy the entire property in part and in whole. It is not therefore necessary for one of the co-owners to convey his interest to the other co-owner. It is sufficient if he releases his interest. The result of such release would be the enlargement of the share of the other co-owner. Each co-owner in theory is entitled to enjoy the entire property in part and in whole. It is not therefore necessary for one of the co-owners to convey his interest to the other co-owner. It is sufficient if he releases his interest. The result of such release would be the enlargement of the share of the other co-owner. There can be no release by one person in favour of another, who is not already entitled to the property as a co-owner." 8. Relying on the observation, the learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, submitted that the petitioner in the present case, is not a co-owner having interest in the property. Since the petitioner is not entitled to any part of the property or any moiety in the property allotted, it is contended by the learned Government Advocate that the Release Deed is not by one co-owner in favour of another and that the Release Deed should be treated as a conveyance as per Article 23 of the schedule to Indian Stamp Act. 9. The submissions of both the counsels are considered. 10. It is not in dispute that the original allotment was made in favour of the petitioner's father on 02.01.1985. After the death of petitioner's father, the petitioner along with the other legal heirs are entitled to equal shares by way of succession. It is to be seen that the allotment was transferred in favour of petitioner's mother only as a legal heir of petitioner's father. In such circumstances, the transfer in favour of petitioner's mother has to be considered only as a transfer to one legal heir representing the other legal heirs. The sale deed even though was executed in favour of petitioner's mother, it should be understood that the mother holds the property in trust for the benefit of all the other legal heirs. No other record is produced before this court to treat the property as her exclusive property. The petitioner's mother was chosen for transfer of allotment and the allotment was transferred in her name only as a legal heir of petitioner's father. The manner of transfer of allotment indicates that the transfer of allotment in favour of petitioner's mother was only by recognising her as the legal representative of the deceased father of the petitioner. The petitioner's mother was chosen for transfer of allotment and the allotment was transferred in her name only as a legal heir of petitioner's father. The manner of transfer of allotment indicates that the transfer of allotment in favour of petitioner's mother was only by recognising her as the legal representative of the deceased father of the petitioner. The document of release is signed by all the legal heirs of the original owner and the petitioner has obtained release from other co-owners and the parties have recognised their equal share in the property. When the document itself shows that the petitioner has obtained release as a co-owner and other co-owners have released their right recognising petitioner's right as co-owner having 1/4th right, the order of the District Registrar as well as the Inspector General of Registration treating the petitioner as a stranger, cannot be accepted. 11. As stated earlier, the petitioner is a co-owner, as his right as a co-owner cannot be ignored merely because the original allotment was transferred in the name petitioner's mother, who was only recognised to get the allotment as a legal heir of petitioner's father. Once the transfer of allotment was in recognition of the relationship as legal heir, the transfer should be deemed to be one in favour of mother, representing all the other heirs. Since the relationship is not in dispute, this court is of the view that Article 55A of the schedule to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 alone is applicable. Article 55 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 reads as follows: Description of Instrument Proper Stamp Duty 55. A. Release, that is to say, any instrument not being such a release as is provided for section 23-A or a release referred to in clauses B, C and D of this Article whereby a person renounces a claim upon another person or against any specified property. A. Release, that is to say, any instrument not being such a release as is provided for section 23-A or a release referred to in clauses B, C and D of this Article whereby a person renounces a claim upon another person or against any specified property. B. Release of Benami Right, in favour of real owner - (a) of immovable property situated within the Chennai Metropolitan Planning Area and the Urban agglomeration of Madurai, Coimbatore, Salem and Tiruchirapalli and the City of Tirunelveli; (b) of immovable property situated in any other area; (c) of immovable property situated in any other area; C.Release of Right in favour of co-owner, that is to say, any instrument whereby a co-owner of a property renounces his claim in favour of another co-owner who is not a family member on any specified property over which they have common right - (i) if it relates to immovable property situated with the Chennai Metropolitan Planning Area or the Urban Agglomeration of Madurai, Coimbatore, Salem and Tiruchirappalli and City of Tirunelveli; (ii) if it relates to immovable property situated in any other area; (iii) if it relates to any other property. D. Release of right in favour of partner - (i) A release of right by a partner or partners in favour of other partners relinquishing his or their rights over the immovable property when the release is between family members who constitute the partnership or when the property is movable property. (ii) When such release is between partners who are not family members. One rupee for every Rs.100 or part thereof of the market value of the property which is under release. [Maximum stamp duty is reduced to Rs.25,000/- by G.O. Ms. No.125, C.T. & R (J1), dated the 30th September 2013] Seven rupees for every Rs.100/- or part thereof of the market value of the property which is the subject matter of release. Seven rupees for every Rs.100/- or part thereof of the market value of the property which is the subject matter of release. Seven rupees for every Rs.100/- or part thereof of the market value of the property which is the subject matter of release. Seven rupees for every Rs.100/- or part thereof of the market value of the property which is the subject matter of release. Seven rupees for every Rs.100/- or part thereof of the market value of the property which is the subject matter of release. Seven rupees for every Rs.100/- or part thereof of the market value of the property which is the subject matter of release. Seven rupees for every Rs.100/- or part thereof of the market value of the property which is the subject matter of release. Seven rupees for every Rs.100/- or part thereof of the market value of the property which is the subject matter of release. Three rupees for every Rs.100/- or part thereof of the market value of the immovable property which is the subject matter of release. (a) Rupees seven for every Rs.100/- or part thereof of the market value of the immovable property which is the subject matter of release when such property is situated within the Chennai Metropolitan Planning Area and the Urban agglomeration of Madurai, Coimbatore, Salem and Tiruchirappalli and the City of Tirunelveli. (b) Seven rupees for every Rs.100/- or part thereof of the market value of the immovable property which is the subject matter of release, when such property is situated in other areas. Since this is a case of release of right by one co-owner in favour of other co-owner and the petitioner is a family member, the release deed attracts Article 55A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, this court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner is liable to pay 1% as stamp duty instead of stamp duty as is applicable to a deed of conveyance. 12. Having regard to the admitted facts, this court is unable to sustain the impugned order dated 11.2.2014 passed by the first respondent in D.Dis.No.28388/P1/2013, confirming the order of the District Registrar (Administration), Central Chennai, dated 03.05.2013. The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to register the document of release by treating the document as a release falling under Article 55A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and return the same after registration by collecting stamp duty accordingly. 13. With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.