JUDGMENT (Common Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records with respect to the final orders passed by the Inspector General of Registration Cum Chief Controlling Revenue Authority i.e., second respondent, in his proceedings Nos.39504/P1/2011-1 and 39504/P1/2011-2 respectively, dated 18.12.2015 in respect of the pending Documents P61/2002 and P63/2002 respectively and quash the impugned orders and to issue direction to the second respondent to classify the Release Deeds under Article 55(A) of Stamp Act.) Common Order: The petitioner has filed these writ petitions seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records with respect to the final orders passed by the second respondent, in his proceedings Nos.39504/P1/2011-1 and 39504/P1/2011-2 respectively, dated 18.12.2015 in respect of the pending Documents P61/2002 and P63/2002 respectively and to quash the impugned orders and to issue direction to the second respondent to classify the Release Deeds under Article 55(A) of Stamp Act. 2. Since the issue involved in these writ petitions are one and the same, they are heard together and disposed of by way of common order. 3. The case of the petitioner in W.P.No.10873 of 2016 is that the petitioner's father purchased an extent of 3600 sq.ft in New Door No.47, Melpatti Ponnappa Mudali Street, Perambur, Chennai and settled the aforesaid property in favour of his four sons including the petitioner by executing two settlement deeds. Thereafter by way of family arrangement, 2466 sq.ft out of 3600 sq.ft. of the subject property was allotted to the petitioner and the three brothers of the petitioner released the property in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner presented the release deed before the first respondent for registration, however, the same was kept as pending document on the ground that stamp duty has to be paid under Article 55 (C) of the Indian Stamp Act, whereas, the petitioner has paid the stamp duty under Article 55 (A) of the Indian Stamp Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner made representation to the first respondent, however, the first respondent passed an order demanding the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty. Hence, the petitioner filed revision before the second respondent, however, the second respondent passed the impugned order confirming the order passed by the first respondent. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner made representation to the first respondent, however, the first respondent passed an order demanding the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty. Hence, the petitioner filed revision before the second respondent, however, the second respondent passed the impugned order confirming the order passed by the first respondent. Hence, this writ petition. 4. The case of the petitioner in W.P.No.10874 of 2016 is that the petitioner's father purchased an extent of 728 sq.ft in Door No.164, Melpatti Ponnappa Mudali Street, Perambur, Chennai and settled the aforesaid property in favour of the petitioner and his another son Sivanesan by way of settlement deed. Thereafter by way of family arrangement, the petitioner's brother Sivanesan released the property in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner presented the release deed before the first respondent for registration, however, the same was kept as pending document on the ground that stamp duty has to be paid under Article 55 (C) of the Indian Stamp Act, whereas, the petitioner has paid the stamp duty under Article 55 (A) of the Indian Stamp Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner made representation to the first respondent, however, the first respondent passed an order demanding the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty. Hence, the petitioner filed revision before the second respondent, however, the second respondent passed the impugned order confirming the order passed by the first respondent. Hence, this writ petition. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that initially under Article 58 of the Indian Stamp Act, the word family did not define brothers as joint family members, however, by an amendment passed by the Tamil Nadu Government by Act 31 of 2004, which came into effect on 16.12.2004, brothers are included as family members. Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed in terms of Article 58 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act. 6. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court reported in CDJ 2016 MHC 7297 (R.B.Vatsal and others Vs. Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed in terms of Article 58 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act. 6. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court reported in CDJ 2016 MHC 7297 (R.B.Vatsal and others Vs. The Commissioner and Secretary, Revenue Department, Chennai and others) and submitted that in the said decision, the learned counsel who appeared for the petitioners therein relied on the clarification for Family and Family members issued by the Government vide Letter No.4860/J1/98-A dated 01.03.1999 of the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes (J1) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9 and G.O.Ms.No.85, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, dated 10.08.2006, with respect to explanation to Article 58 of the Schedule – I appended to the Act and this Court set aside the orders impugned therein and remanded the matter back to the second respondent therein for passing fresh orders. 7. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that an amendment to Article 55 – C of the Indian Stamp Act was made by inserting the term “another co-owner who is not a family member” making the release in favour of coowner who is a family member as defined under Article 58 of the Indian Stamp Act chargeable under Article 55 – A of the Indian Stamp Act. The amendment came into force with effect from 16.12.2004. Hence, this amendment is not applicable to the document executed during the year 2002. Further the Government have issued orders under letter No.85, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 10.08.2006 that instrument of Settlement or Release executed in favour of brother or sister is an instrument in favour of a member of a family as defined in Article 58 in Schedule I to the Indian Stamp Act. Hence, the release deeds made in favour of the petitioner cannot be construed as a release deed chargeable under Article 55 (A) of the Indian Stamp Act. 8. Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused the materials available on record. 9. The facts in the present case is not in dispute. Hence, the release deeds made in favour of the petitioner cannot be construed as a release deed chargeable under Article 55 (A) of the Indian Stamp Act. 8. Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused the materials available on record. 9. The facts in the present case is not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioner's brothers executed release deeds in favour of the petitioner and the same when presented for registration before the first respondent were kept pending on the ground that stamp duty has to be paid under Article 55 (C) of the Indian Stamp Act, whereas, the petitioner has paid the stamp duty under Article 55 (A) of the Indian Stamp Act, as if brothers are not coming under the definition of family members. 10. The issue involved in these writ petitions is no longer res integra and it has already been considered by this Court in its decision reported in CDJ 2016 MHC 7297 (R.B.Vatsal and others Vs. The Commissioner and Secretary, Revenue Department, Chennai and others), the relevant portion of which reads as follows: “5. Today, when the matter came up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire property was jointly enjoyed by all the petitioners, who are the members of the family and therefore, the document executed for division of the same among the family members shall be construed as partition deed and the stamp duty payable for the same would only fall under Article 45 of the Schedule -I appended to the Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the clarification for Family and Family members, issued by the Government vide Letter No.4860/J1/98-A dated 1.3.1999 of the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes (J1) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9 and G.O.Ms.No.85 Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, dated 10.08.2006, with respect to Explanation to Article 58 of the Schedule-I appended to the Act. 6. For better appreciation, the said clarification is extracted as follows: "Clarification for Family and Family members as clarified by the Government to benefit the concession for the transaction between brothers and sisters also: Because of the explanation to the word 'family', transfer between brothers and sisters are largely affected by paying higher stamp duty in executing the deed of partition, Release and settlement. Therefore, the Government clarified the word 'family' as follows: "Family includes brothers and sisters. Therefore, the Government clarified the word 'family' as follows: "Family includes brothers and sisters. Therefore, in case of partition, release, settlement between brothers and sisters also entitled to concession to pay the stamp duty considering them as family members. An instrument of partition, settlement and release executed in favour of brothers and sisters is an instrument in favour of a member of a family as defined in Article 58" [See Lr.No.4860/J1/98-A, dated 1-3-1999, Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes (J1) Dept., Secretariat, Chennai - 9 and Lr.Ms.No.85, Commercial Taxes and Registration Dept., dated 10-08-2006]." In my considered view, in the light of the said clarification, the petitioners herein would fall within the ambit of 'family'. Therefore, the impugned order dated 09.03.2009 passed by the second respondent by treating the petitioners 2 and 3 as not family members and as outsiders and accordingly directing the petitioners to pay the deficit stamp duty for registration of the partition deed in question, is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside.” 11. Applying the ratio laid down in the decision cited supra, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders passed by the second respondent dated 18.12.2015 are set aside. No costs.