EASUN PRODUCTS OF INDIA PVT LTD Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND CHIEF CONTROLLER OF REVENUE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the first respondent in a revision filed under Section 56(1) of Indian Stamp Act confirming the order charging Stamp Duty under Art.23 of Schedule I of the above Act for registering a Deed of Assignment of Mortgage Debt is under challenge in the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

(2.) The appellant is the Assignee. The Assignor sold the debt created by an equilateral mortgage by deposit of title deeds along with certain immovable properties as security for due repayment. The respondents have treated the original mortgage as one executed by Deposit of Title deeds and Promissory Note and held that it was not a legal mortgage to bring it under the definition "Mortgage Deed" under S.2(17) of the Act and further held that the transfer will not fall under the purview of Art 62(c) and it is chargeable under Art.23 as Conveyance. The first respondent relying on the judgment in the matter of Kamala Ranjan Ray reported in 1937 ILR 486 (FB) confirmed the order of the Sub-Registrar charging stamp duty under Art 23 of Sch- I of Indian Stamp Act,1899. According to the first respondent the claim of the appellant that the deed will attract Art 62 (c) of the Schedule I of the Act is not sustainable.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the original mortgage by deposit of title deed has already suffered Stamp Duty and the assignment of mortgage debt cannot be considered as creating any fresh right, but it is only a transfer of right to recover the debt. As such it cannot be construed as conveyance and charging the document under Art 23 is not sustainable and the Stamp Duty collected in excess is liable to be refunded. He would rely on the following judgments to buttress his arguments.