CHANDA PILLAI Vs. MUNSIFF TIRUVALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 218 of 1971 in the Munsiff's Court, Tiruvalla. He had produced three documents in that case. One document was a sale deed dated 28-9-1970, in respect of a jeep, executed by one K. M. Abraham in favour of one K. T. Thomas for Rs. 11,000/-. The second document was an agreement dated 7-12-1970 executed by one Yohannan Mathai in favour of the said Thomas for payment of the amount of Rs. 9250/-. The third document was an assignment deed in favour of the petitioner of the rights as per the previous agreement for realisation of Rs. 2000/- executed by the said Thomas. These documents were not marked in evidence. According to the petitioner, he withdrew the suit. As per the averments in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent by the Tahsildar, Tiruvalla, the suit was not withdrawn as stated by the petitioner but was dismissed by the Munsiff on 25-11-1972 for non payment of stamp duty and penalty in respect of the documents for which it was specifically posted to a particular date. Anyhow, there is no controversy that the documents concerned were not marked in evidence though they had been impounded by the learned Munsiff. The Munsiff seems to have made requisition, to the second respondent District Collector for recovery of the amount alleged to be due from the petitioner on account of stamp duty and penalty which he had levied in respect of the documents concerned. Exts. P2 to P4 are the letters sent by the Munsiff to the District Collector, by which requisitions were made for recovery of the amounts concerned.

(2.) Consequent on these letters, Exts. P-2 to P-4. proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act was initiated against the petitioner. Ext P-1 notice was issued to him by the Village Officer, Kallooppara, under the Revenue Recovery Act, demanding an amount of Rs. 5964.75. Contending, the proceedings and the assessment to stamp duty and penalty by the Munsiff and the consequent proceedings for recovery of the said amount under the Revenue Recovery Act were illegal and ultra vires, the petitioner has approached this court for quashing the same. He has asked for a writ of certiorari to quash Exts. P1 to P4. and for a writ of mandamus for directing the Village Officer, Kallooppara to refrain from proceeding under the Revenue Recovery Act against the petitioner for realisation of the amount mentioned in Ext. P1.

(3.) The sum and substance of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that the Munsiff has no jurisdiction to impose any such penalty as is evidenced by Exts. P2 to P4 and therefore the consequential proceedings for recovery of the same is illegal. I have no hesitation in agreeing with the contentions raised by the petitioner. The proceedings impugned in the case cannot stand the scrutiny of law. Under S.33 of the Stamp Act (hereinafter called the Act) every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, and every person in charge of a public office, except an Officer of Police, before whom any instrument, chargeable in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, has got the power to impound the same. Under the relevant provision, it is the duty of the public officer to impound the documents concerned. S.34 of the Act provides that, no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped. But it such instrument not being an instrument chargeable with a duty of 20 Ps. or less than 20 Ps. shall, subject to all just exceptions, be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable, or in the case of an instrument insufficiently stamped, of the amount required to make up such duty, together with a penalty of five rupees or, when ten times the amount of the proper duty or deficient portion thereof exceeds five rupees, of a sum equal to ten times such duty or portion. But this imposition of penalty arises only when it is admitted in evidence as would be clear from S.34 of .the Act. When such penalty has been levied and collected and the instrument admitted in evidence then the authority concerned has to send to the Collector an authenticated copy of such instrument, together with a certificate in writing, stating the amount of duty and penalty levied in respect thereof, and shall send such amount to the Collector or to such person as he may appoint in his behalf. In every other case, the person so impounding an instrument shall send it in original to the Collector.