S N MATHUR Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal relates to the stamp duty payable in regard to a deed of trust dated 9.8.1991 executed by the appellant and his two brothers. The executants paid a stamp duty of Rs. 1,325/ thereon, under Article 64 of Schedule I-B to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as amended in U.P. ('Act' for short). The registering authority being of the view that it was not duly stamped, impounded it and referred it to the adjudicating authority. The said Authority made an order that the deed also answered the definition of "settlement" as defined under section 2(24) of the Act, and therefore stamp duty was payable under Article 58 of Schedule I-B of the Act on the declared value of the trust property (Rs.2,10,000/-). He directed recovery of deficit stamp duty of Rs.10,225/- and an equal amount as penalty. The said order was challenged by the appellant by filing a revision before the Chief Controller (Board of Revenue), Allahabad. The revisional authority dismissed the revision by order dated 21.5.1996. The appellant challenged the said order in Writ Petition No.54 of 2002. The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the authority under the Stamp Act did not commit any error in construing the instrument to be a "settlement" as defined under section 2(24) of the Act and that stamp duty was payable under Article 58. The said order is challenged in this appeal.

(2.) THE title part of the instrument reads thus :

(3.) THE question for consideration is not whether the instrument is a deed of trust or not. THE fact that the instrument falls within the description of Trust deed is not in doubt. In fact that is not challenged by the State. THE question is whether the instrument answers the definition of 'settlement' and therefore would also come under the description of 'settlement deed' in Article 58. THE appellant contends that it will not, and for that purpose relies on the recitals of the trust deed that the Trust is created for preserving, protecting and managing the trust property known as 'Mathur Atithishala' in Chitrakoot. THE state contends that it will, and for that purpose relies on the operative portion of the instrument which shows that the three owners conveyed and transferred their property to the Trustees, to have and to hold the same and to own, possess and manage it as Trust Property. On the contentions raised, the question that arises for consideration is whether the instrument in question which answers the description of 'Trust deed', will also answer the description of "settlement deed", and if so whether stamp duty is payable on the instrument, under Article 58 of Schedule I-B to the Act.