ANNA RAO Vs. BANDEPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for revising the order of the Munsiff at Chincholi, dated 5-10-1967, holding that a document sought to be produced in evidence by the plaintiff, was a deed of sale and not an agreement for sale, that the said document was insufficiently stamped and that it would be admitted in evidence only on payment of the deficient stamp duty and penalty. Feeling aggrieved by that order, the plaintiff has come up in revision.

(2.) Mr. Murlidhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff, has produced before me a copy of this document. From a reading of it, it appears to me that it purports to transfer an interest in immovable property. Hence the document comes within the definition of 'conveyance' in S.2(d) of the Mysore Stamp Act, 1957.

(3.) But Mr. Murlidhar Rao contended thai under this deed there can be no legal transfer of the title in immovable property for two reasons. The first is that this document is not registered under S.54 of the Transfer of Property Act, and that a transfer of an immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards can be made only by a registered instrument. The second is that under S. 47 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, no permanent alienation or transfer of an agricultural land shall be valid unless it has been made with the previous sanction of the Collector. It was further contended by Mr.Murlidhar Rao that unless an instrument legally effects a transfer of a property, that instrument is not chargeable to stamp duty as deed of conveyance. in support of his contention, Mr, Murlidhar Rao rejued on the decision of this Court in Malkajappa v. Ayyamma, (1964)1 MysL.J. 299. There, a deed purporting to be a deed of mortgage, was neither attested nor registered. The question that arose for determination was whether that deed was chargeable to stamp duty as a deed of mortgage. Following the decision of a Full Bench of Madras High Court in Crompton Engineering Co. (Madras) Ltd., v. Chief Controlling Rev. Authority Madras, AIR 1953 Mad. 764, Narayana Pai, J., held that the document was not chargeable to stamp duty as a deed of mortgage because the same had not been registered.