VARGHESE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision-petitioner filed a suit for injunction against respondents 2 and 3. The suit related to the building which was under the occupation of the revision-petitioner as a tenant. At the time of presentation of the plaint, the plaint produced a rent-deed- The chief ministerial officer of the Munsiff's court noticed that the rent deed was not properly stamped and a sum of Rs. 41,217/- was payable as stamp duty and penalty. The learned Munsiff thereafter made an endorsement on the document : "pay stamp duty and penalty. The suit was not pressed and the same was dismissed on 2-7-1984. The plaintiff filed an application for the return of the document. However, the document was not returned and the same was impounded by the learned Munsiff on 3-8-1984. The application to return the document was dismissed. Plaintiff filed I.A.No. 1943 of 1984 to review the order passed by the court impounding the document.

(2.) The short question that arises for consideration is whether the order of the learned Munsiff impounding the document on 3-8-1984 was correct. The learned counsel for the revision-petitioner Shri S. Ananthan Subramanian contended that the court had become functus officio and had no right to impound the document when the suit was already disposed of. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the document was produced by the plaintiff, therefore under S.33 of the Stamp Act, the Court was justified in impounding the document.

(3.) The word "impound'' is not defined in the Stamp Act. According to the Oxford Dictionary its meaning includes "to take legal or formal possession of" and according to Chambers Dictionary it means: "to confine as in a pound, to restrain within limits, to take legal possession etc." In the instant case, the document was presented to the court along with the plaint and thereafter the suit was settled. The relevant section, S.33, of the Stamp Act reads as follows :