N SARADAMBAL AMMAL Vs. CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITYMADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for the issue of a writ of Mandamus under Art. 226 of the Constitution, directing the Revenue Board, Madras, the Chief Controlling Authority, to refer the case to the High Court under S. 57(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, (which will for the sake of convenience be referred to as the Act).

(2.) The petitioner, Saradambal Ammal and two others, namely, Nooruddin Sahib and Natesa Gramani, entered into a tripartite arrangement on 16-2-1956 under which the properties which I shall refer A, B and C were exchanged inter se, so that Saradambal got C properties. Nooruddin Sahib A properties and Natesa Gramani B properties. The document, which is styled as exchange, was stamped as two exchanges under Art. 26 of the Indian Stamp Act. It was presented for registration to the Sub Registrar of Saidapet. That officer received the document, but, as he felt a doubt about the sufficiency of the stamp, he referred the matter to the Registrar of Assurances Madras, who was the Collector within the meaning of the Act. The Registrar of Assurances was of the opinion that the document should be construed as three conveyances, that an additional duty of Rs. 42 together with penalty of Rs. 5 would be leviable, and that in addition a deficit registration fee of Rs. 5-4-0 should also be collected. In this the Collector was presumably acting under S. 40(1)(b) of the Indian Stamp Act. The Sub Registrar directed the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty by his order dated 3-4-1956. The petitioner did not pay the additional stamp duty N. Saradambal Ammal vs. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Madras (24.04.... Page 3 of 8 required of her. She moved the Registrar of Assurances to reconsider the order of the Sub Registrar, or refer the question to the Collector of Madras. The registrar of Assurances saw no reason to revise the order of the Sub Registrar. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a petition before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under S. 56 of the Stamp Act, praying that the document may be declared to have been properly stamped, and that it may be regarded as two conveyances. In the alternative, she prayed that the case might be referred to the High Court under S. 57(1). The Chief Controlling Revenue authority, the first respondent, by his resolution dated 3-11-1956 held that, the document comprised really three conveyances, and that there was no reason to interfere with the orders of the Registrar of Assurances. It also found that there was no necessity to refer the matter to the High Court, as the stamp duty involved was not much, and as the point involved was not intricate. The petitioner has, thereupon, filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the relief already mentioned.

(3.) Although the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority has stated in its order that the decision as to proper stamp duty payable in respect of the document does not raise any intricate question, it is clear, on a reading of the document, that such a question of law arises in its construction viz, as to whether the document is nothing more than two exchanges, as a result of the tripartite arrangement, or whether it comprises three conveyances. The other reason given by the first respondent, that the amount of stamp duty involved is not much, could hardly be held to be sufficient reason for its refusal to act under S. 57(1).