CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY Vs. BAGYALAKSHMI KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act. The question referred to this Court relates to the construction of the document, dated 26th December, 1954, executed by Chokkalingam Chettiar in favour of the respondent Mrs. Bagyalakshmi Krishnan and that is Whether the document is only a surrender of lease as it purports to be but also a conveyance of movable assets and liabilities of the lessee's factory for a consideration of Rs. 1,45,837 -3 -1 and the document therefore falls within Articles 49(b) and 18 of Schedule I -A of the Stamp Act and be stamped as such.

(2.) THE respondent granted a lease of certain immovable properties with structures thereon and machinery known as 'Vijayakumar Ginning Factory' at Peelamedu, Coimbatore, by a document, dated 5th December, 1949, in favour of Chokkalingam Chettiar, for a period of 10 years commencing from 1st April, 1949. Under its terms the lessee was to pay the lessor a premium of Rs. 1,00,000 which sum together with interest thereon at 4 per cent, per annum was to be adjusted every year by giving credit a sum of Rs. 10,000 therefrom and the interest thereon in the rent payable every year. The lessee covenanted to yield up the demised property on the termination of the tenancy with advantages thereto and the fixtures which existed on the date of the demise other than the trade or tenants' fixtures removable by the lessee.

(3.) THE deed was stamped under Article 49 of Schedule I -A as a surrender of the lease and a duty of Rs. 15 was paid. When the document was presented for registration, it was registered as a pending document and the question of the proper stamp was referred to the District Registrar, Coimbatore, for adjudication. That Officer held that the document, in addition to its being a surrender, was a conveyance of movables, namely the assets and liabilities of the factory for a consideration of Rs. 1,45,837 -3 -1 and that it was liable for a duty both as a surrender of a lease and also as a conveyance and that the duty of Rs. 4,395 was payable thereon. Therefore he called upon the respondent to pay the deficit stamp of Rs. 4380. The respondent appealed to the Board of Revenue against the order but without success. Thereupon he filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, W.P. No. 948 of 1955, in this Court to direct the petitioner to refer the question of the proper stamp duty payable on the document under Section 57 and this Court by its order, dated 19th November, 1956, directed such reference.