NUNNI H. ADVANI Vs. THE CHIEF CONTROLLING AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Writ Appeal has been filed against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court, dated 25.11.1991 made in Writ Petition No. 10948 of 1983, whereunder, the learned single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition filed by the appellant, seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent herein in D. Dis. P.M. No. 56496/04/82, dated 8.9.1983 and further direct the respondents to levy stamp duty only in accordance with Article 40(b), Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The relevant facts necessary for the purpose of appreciating the contentions raised before us are that a deed purporting to be a deed of mortgage by conditional sale was executed on 3.3.1981 by one M.V. Chellappa, the mortgagor in favour of the appellant, the mortgagee, who was said to have been present for registration before the Office of the Sub -Registrar, Sembiam on 4.3.1981. The said document appears to have been valued and engrossed on a stamp paper of the value of Rs. 390/ - in terms of Article 40(b) of the Schedule to the Indian Stamp Act (in short the Act). The Registering Authority impounded the document, when it was presented for registration and forwarded the same to the District Registrar, Madras (North) for adjudication of the stamp duty and the District Registrar passed orders to the effect that the stamp duty leviable is of Rs. 1952.50 p. under Articles 23 and 5(1) of the Schedule to the Act and after following the procedure prescribed therefore called upon the parties to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.1562.50 p. and a penalty of Rs. 10/ - As against the same, the appellant filed a revision before the first respondent. The first respondent came to the conclusion that the document was capable of being treated as one falling under both Articles 23 -(Conveyance) and Article 40 (Mortgage deed) and therefore in terms of Sec. 6 of the Act, the document is chargeable only with the highest of such duties and as such agreed with the assessment of the duty made by the District Registrar. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the above Writ Petition before this Court, as noticed supra, seeking to quash the order of the first respondent and for consequential relief also.

(2.) The contesting respondents have also filed a counter affidavit, opposing the claim of the appellant.

(3.) Learned Single Judge on a careful consideration of the recitals in the document, as also the definition of conveyance in Sec. 2(10) of the Act came to the conclusion that the levy in question was quite in accordance with law and it did not call for any interference. Hence, the above Writ Appeal.