K. DHARMALINGAM AND OTHERS Vs. VALLIAMMAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents / plaintiffs have filed a suit in OS.No.124 of 2008 for declaration and permanent injunction against the revision petitioners herein / defendants. According to the petitioners, Kanniappa Naicker is the absolute owner of the property, orally sold the suit property for Rs. 650/- to Thiruvengada Naicker on 19.01.1974 and passed delivery of possession to Thiruvengada Naicker, by confirming the oral sale and also executed, unregistered sale deed dated 19.01.1974 in favour of Thiruvengada Naicker. The said document has been shown as document No.1, in the list of documents in the above said suit. The respondents / plaintiffs filed an application in IA.No.1279 of 2015 to send the document to Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvallur to ascertain the correct stamp duty and to collect the same with minimum penalty. The counter statement has been filed by the revision petitioner / first defendant, under section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act to send the sale letter dated 19.01.1974 to Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvallur for impounding, thereby ascertaining the correct stamp duty and to collect the same with minimum penalty is not maintainable. According to the first defendant, the sale letter itself is forgery. Hence, the application is not maintainable. Therefore, the said letter dated 19.01.1974 is not liable to levy stamp duty, since it is time barred, under the Indian Stamp Act as well as Limitation Act. The trial court considered the decisions of this Court, in the case of Karuppannan v. Thavasiappan and another reported in (2006) 4 MLJ p 706 and in the case of Avinashkumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra reported in (2009) 3 MLJ 409 (SC), wherein it has been held that there is a statutory obligation on all the authorities to impound the document, which is not duly stamped, and that the Court, being an authority to receive a document, in evidence, is bound to give effect thereto. The trial court while allowing the application by holding that the court itself can assess the stamp duty and collect the penalty on its own and it is not necessary to send the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvallur. Challenging the aforesaid order, the revision petitioners have filed the present Civil Revision Petition before this Court.

(2.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit the said application has been filed by the respondent to impound the document for assessing the same under section 33 of Indian Stamp Act. The court below has allowed the application by holding that the court itself, has power to assess the sale deed is contrary to law and beyond its jurisdiction. The contention of the revision petitioners, after marking a document, the court has to send for the authority concerned for assessment, without following the provision of law, allowing the application is erroneous and perverse. Therefore, the order passed by the court below is liable to the set aside.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chilakuri Gangulappa v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanpalle and another reported in (2001) 4 SCC 197 , wherein in paragraphs 11 and 13, it has been held as follows.