ORDER : This civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 29.09.2016 in I.A.No.1162 of 2014 in O.S.No.77 of 2011 on the file of IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 4 to 7. Perused the record. 3. During the pendency of this revision, respondent No.1 died and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondent Nos.4 to 7. 4. The petitioner/plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of oral contract against respondent Nos.1 to 3/defendant Nos.1 to 3. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed written statement. While so, respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.1162 of 2014 under Section 33 read with Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short “the Stamp Act”) to impound the documents i.e. acknowledgments/receipts dated 08.04.2010 and 16.04.2010 filed by the petitioner herein on the ground that they sought to be utilized as “instrument” for proving the plea of the alleged relinquishment. As such, the said documents would have to be constituted as ‘Deeds of Conveyance’ as defined under Section 2 (10) of the Stamp Act and both the documents are chargeable to stamp duty under schedule 1-A of Article 20 of the said Enactment. The petitioner filed counter stating that there is misunderstanding of ‘Acknowledgments/Receipts’ as Undertaking-cum-Receipts and attempted to portray them as instruments of conveyance, which is not at all correct, as such, there is no need of impounding of the documents. On consideration of the material on record, the trial Court allowed the application. The last paragraph of the said order reads as under: “That intention of the parties clearly release the property in three suits for impounding the acknowledgment receipts, dated 08.04.2010 and 16.04.2010 are liable for stamp duty and penalty as per Article 20 of Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act. Challenging the said order, the present revision is filed. 5. Besides filing the written arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has committed error in interpreting the acknowledgment or receipt as conveyance under the Transfer of property Act and ordering impounding of the subject documents for stamp duty and penalty. He further submits that there is no conveyance, only relinquishment of right for share in partition. He further submits that the impugned order suffers from infirmity. As such, he prays to set aside the same. He further submits that there is no conveyance, only relinquishment of right for share in partition. He further submits that the impugned order suffers from infirmity. As such, he prays to set aside the same. He placed reliance on the following precedents: 1. Kothuri Venkata Subba Rao v. Registrar of Assurances, Guntur, CDJ 1985 APHC 141. 2. Gopi Krishna Trivedi v. Sudama Prasad Ojha, CDJ 2008 SC 1689 3. Secretary, Board of Revenue v. S.S.Sankaranarayana Reddiar, Laws (KER) 1981 (7) 55 4. K.Sambasivaraju v. M.V.S.R.Chandrayya Chetty, AIR 1967 Andhra Pradesh 87. 6. Besides filing written arguments, per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondents supporting the impugned order submits that since undertaking-cum-receipts sought to be utilized as instruments to prove the plea of alleged relinquishment, the said undertaking-cum-receipts would have to be constituted ‘Deeds of Conveyance’. As such, the trial Court has not committed any error. He placed reliance on the following precedents. i) Gopi Krishna Trivedi v. Sudama Prasad Ojha, AIR 2009 Supreme Court 355 ii) Kothuri Venkata Subba Rao v. Registrar of Assurances, Guntur, AIR 1986 Andhra Pradesh 42 7. The petitioner filed suit for specific performance of oral contract seeking direction to defendant No.1 to receive the balance contractual amount of Rs.24,50,000/- in terms of contract and to sign the Memorandum of Compromise settling his share in the suits for partition bearing O.S.No.121 of 1997, O.S.No.122 of 1997 and O.S.No.67 of 1997 on the file of II Senior Civil Judge’s Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad now pending in S.L.P.No.2516/2005 and 2517/2005 alternatively his share in properties claimed in the above suits having been fully settled and grant any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner/plaintiff is entitled. 8. The sole question that arises for consideration is; whether the subject documents, which are portrayed as “Acknowledgments /receipts” allegedly executed by the first respondent are liable to stamp duty and penalty, as per Article 20 of Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act? 9. In Kothuri Venkata Subba Rao’s case supra, Full Bench of this Court at para Nos.12 and 14 held as under: 12. It is now well settled that in order to determine the nature of an instrument, neither the nomenclature nor the language which the parties may choose to employ in framing the document is decisive. What is decisive is the actual nature and the character of the transaction intended by the executant. 14. It is now well settled that in order to determine the nature of an instrument, neither the nomenclature nor the language which the parties may choose to employ in framing the document is decisive. What is decisive is the actual nature and the character of the transaction intended by the executant. 14. From this ruling, it is clear that the intendment of the parties to the instrument, and the purpose of the transaction for which the instrument is brought into existence, the recitals or the language employed in the instrument should be given paramount consideration for judging whether a particular document is a deed of release or a deed of conveyance. Where the executant while executing an instrument conveying property but describes the same as a release deed, it is open to the Court to ignore the description given by the executant and deal with the document on the footing that it is a sale deed. Similarly in a case where the executant's intention can legally be achieved by executing a deed of release but the document is described as a conveyance, the description given by the executant can be ignored and the document can be dealt with as a deed of release, since the purpose and intention underlying the execution of the document but not the nomenclature or the description should be taken into consideration for determining the nature of the document. 10. Keeping in view, the above law laid down by this Court, coming to the present case, the documents before me were described as the acknowledgments/receipts. The recitals of each document are required to be examined to ensure a degree of transparency in deciding the matter. The first document styled as acknowledgment/receipt, dated 08.04.2020 executed by Samireddy Ram Reddy acknowledging the receipt of Rs.2,80,000/- from Mr.S.Shivraj Reddy S/o.late S.Satyanarayana Reddy, out of total amount of Rs.55.00 lakhs under the Memorandum of Compromise. The recitals of each document are required to be examined to ensure a degree of transparency in deciding the matter. The first document styled as acknowledgment/receipt, dated 08.04.2020 executed by Samireddy Ram Reddy acknowledging the receipt of Rs.2,80,000/- from Mr.S.Shivraj Reddy S/o.late S.Satyanarayana Reddy, out of total amount of Rs.55.00 lakhs under the Memorandum of Compromise. The recitals, which are relevant, are as under: “I the above named entered into compromise with my brother Mr.Sammireddy Shivraj Reddy in respect of the subject matter of suits bearing O.S.No.121/97 (old number O.S.No.754/1991), O.S.No.122/97 (old number O.S.NO.755/1991), O.S.No.67/97 (old number O.S.NO.3/1996) originally filed by my another brother Mr.S.Raghuraj Reddy S/o. Late Satyanarayana Reddy on the file of the II Addl.Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad and presently pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide SLP.No.2516/2005 & 2517/2005 thereby relinquishing all my claims, share, rights whatsoever in respect of the subject matter of the aforesaid suits subject to receipt of Rs.55,00,000/- (Rupees fifty five lakhs only) from my brother Mr.S.Shivraj Reddy under the said Memorandum of compromise.” ……….I hereby undertake to enter into a comprehensive Memorandum of Compromise as and when requested by my brother Mr.S.Shivraj Reddy and abide by the terms and conditions of the same subject to the receipt of the entire amount of Rs.55,00,000/- (Rupees fifty five lakhs only). Hence this Receipt signed and acknowledged on this the 8th day of April, 2010 having received the amount of Rs.2,80,000/-(Rupees two lakhs and eighty thousands only) towards part payment of out of the total amount of Rs.55,00,000/- (Rupees fifty five lakhs only) payable to me by my brother Mr.S.Shivraj Reddy S/o.late S.Satyanarayana Reddy under the Memorandum of Compromise.” 11. The second document styled as acknowledgment/receipt, dated 16.04.2010, executed by Samireddy Ram Reddy acknowledging the receipt of Rs.30,50,000/- from Mr.S.Shivraj Reddy S/o.late S.Satyanarayana Reddy, out of total amount of Rs.55,00 lakhs under the Memorandum of Compromise. The second document styled as acknowledgment/receipt, dated 16.04.2010, executed by Samireddy Ram Reddy acknowledging the receipt of Rs.30,50,000/- from Mr.S.Shivraj Reddy S/o.late S.Satyanarayana Reddy, out of total amount of Rs.55,00 lakhs under the Memorandum of Compromise. The recitals, which are relevant, are as under: I the above named do hereby acknowledge the aforesaid amount of Rs.30,50,000/-(Rupees thirty lakhs and fifty thousands only) under the Memorandum of Compromise entered with my brother Mr.Sammireddy Shivraj Reddy in respect of the subject matter of suits bearing O.S.No.121/97 (old number O.S.No.754/1991), O.S.No.122/97 (old number O.S.No.755/1991), O.S.No.67/97 (old number O.S.No.3/1996) originally filed by my another brother Mr.S.Raghuraj Reddy S/o.Late Satyanarayana Reddy on the file of the II Addl.Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad and presently pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide SLP.No.2516/2005 & 2517/2005 thereby relinquishing all my claims, share, rights whatsoever in respect of the subject matter of the aforesaid suits subject to receipt of Rs.55,00,000/- (Rupees fifty five lakhs only) from my brother Mr.S.Shivraj Reddy under the intended Memorandum of compromise to be executed between both of us on receipt of balance amount of Rs.24,50,000/- (Rupees twenty four lakhs and fifty thousands only) out of the total amount of Rs.55,00,000/-(Rupees fifty five lakhs only) payable to me by Mr.S.Shivraj Reddy. Hence this Receipt signed and acknowledged on this the 16th day of April, 2010 having received the amount of Rs.30,50,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs and fifty thousands only) towards part payment of out of the total amount of Rs.55,00,000/-(Rupees fifty five lakhs only) payable to me by my brother Mr.S.Shivraj Reddy S/o. late S.Satyanarayana Reddy under the Memorandum of Compromise.” 12. The recitals of each of the documents go to show that the first respondent entered into compromise with his brother Shivraj Reddy in respect of the schedule properties and thereby, relinquishing all his claims, share, rights, whatsoever, in respect of the subject matter of the aforesaid suits “subject to” receipt of Rs.55,00,000/- from his brother Mr.S.Shivraj Reddy under the memorandum of compromise. The first respondent has agreed as per the memorandum of compromise that he would relinquish all his claims, share, rights whatsoever in respect of the subject matter of the suits “subject to” receipt of Rs.55.00 lakhs. It appears from the both the documents that an amount of Rs.30,50,000/- has been paid out of Rs.55.00 lakhs as per the terms of memorandum of compromise. It appears from the both the documents that an amount of Rs.30,50,000/- has been paid out of Rs.55.00 lakhs as per the terms of memorandum of compromise. The first respondent agreed to convey the title by relinquishment by executing release deed or by conveyance deed to transfer his share “subject to” condition on payment of Rs.55.00 lakhs. Since, the transaction has not been completed, it cannot be construed that the subject documents are deeds of release and they are liable for stamp duty and penalty as held by the trial Court. 13. Apart from the above, let me examine, whether the documents in question fulfill the terms of either deeds of conveyance or deeds of release. The word “Conveyance” is defined under Section 2 (10) of the Stamp Act, which reads as follows: “Conveyance” includes a conveyance on sale and every instrument by which property, whether moveable or immoveable is transferred inter vivos and which is not otherwise specifically provided for by Schedule I. The word “release” is not defined, but Article 55 of Sch 1-A of the Stamp Act reads as follows: “Release: that is to say, (A) any instrument (not being such a release as is provided for by S.23-A) whereby person renounces a claim upon another person or against any specified property.” A deed of release is an instrument by which one of the co-owners releases or renounces his interest in the specified property and the result of such release would be the enlargement of the share of the other co-owner. Thus there is a clear and marked distinction between a deed of conveyance and a deed of release. The stamp duty payable for a deed of conveyance is under Art.20 of Sch.1-A, Stamp Act, is more than the duty payable for a deed of release under Art.46 of the Sch.1-A of the Act. 14. The facts in Kothuri Venkata Subba Rao’s case supra relied on by both the counsel, relates to the question that was referred by the Commissioner of Survey Settlements and Land Records, Andhra Pradesh under Section 57 of the Stamp Act is, whether the document styled as release deed is a sale deed for consideration or whether it is a release deed. In the said case, the recitals of the documents also go to show that ten persons purchased the property under two sale deeds and all of them are co-owners and out of them, four co-owners executed the four documents, each of them relinquishing share in the property i.e. 1/10th share in favour of remaining six owners only for consideration of Rs.12,000/- and conveying the absolute title in their favour. In the said case, since the relinquishment by co-owners subject to receiving of consideration of certain amount would come under the definition of ‘conveyance’, but, not the deed of release. Therefore, the Full Court held that the said documents in question are deeds of conveyance and are chargeable under Article 20 of the Stamp Act. 15. As stated above, on careful examination of the description given in the instruments for determining the nature of the documents, they appear to be neither the deeds of release nor deeds of conveyance, as it was only the compromise is intended on the date of document “subject to” the receipt of entire amount of Rs.55.00 lakhs and acknowledgments-cum-receipts were executed evidencing the receipt of Rs.30,50,000/-, out of Rs.55.00 lakhs. There was no transfer of property under any document. When there is no transfer inter vivos under the said document, the same cannot be termed as ‘conveyance’. In the given circumstances, if Shivraj Reddy had paid the entire amount to the first respondent and to that effect, if the document was executed by the first respondent renouncing his claim, certainly, the acknowledgment/receipt would have fallen under the definition of instrument under Article 55 of the Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act. Therefore, the subject documents are not liable to be construed as either deeds of release or deeds of conveyance and they have to be treated as sufficiently stamped acknowledgments/ receipts only. 16. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that the trial Court erred in observing that the subject documents are liable for stamp duty and penalty. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from infirmity warrants interference by this Court and the same is liable to be set aside. 17. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. I.A.No.1162 of 2014 stands dismissed. The trial Court is directed to consider the subject documents as acknowledgments/receipts and admit them in evidence in accordance with law. 17. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. I.A.No.1162 of 2014 stands dismissed. The trial Court is directed to consider the subject documents as acknowledgments/receipts and admit them in evidence in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.