(1.) In this reference under section 57(2} at the Indian Stamp Act, we have to consider the true nature of the mortgage deed dated 24-6-1968 to opine whether :-
(2.) QUESTION NO. 1 :-
(3.) The recitals in the deed in question are that the whole of the property comprising two buildings Nos. 8 and 9 in Block A, Con- naught Place, New Delhi, belonged to the Dayal Singh Library Trust Society who agreed to sell them to Messrs. Dhoomi Mal Ram Chand for a price paid to the Trust by the New Bank of India in consideration of the mortgage of the whole property by Messrs. Dhoomi Mal Ram Chand to the said Bank. The deed is thus a tripartite agreement between the seller, the purchaser-mortgagor and the mortgagee. A part of the property was already in the possession of the mortgagee as a lessee. By clauses 4 and 5 of the deed, the parties agreed that the said lease shall remain effective and binding on the mortgagor. The Collector of Stamps was of the view that the possession of the property was thus delivered by the mortgagor to the mortgagee and, therefore, the deed in question was a usufructuary mortgage. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority was, on the other hand, of the view that the mortgagor did not give possession to the mortgagee in this transaction which could not, therefore, be considered as a mortgage with possession.