THAKUR HAR BUX SINGH Vs. SATISH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Chief Inspector of Stamps has made a prayer to this Court, in his report, for recording a declaration under Section 61 (2) of the Stamp Act to the effect that the document, Ex. 20, which has been admitted in evidence by the Civil Judge, was chargeable with a duty of Rs. 46-14-0 and with a penalty of Rs. 468-12-0 before it could be admitted in evidence. Notices on this report were issued to the parties and the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents and the counsel for the State have both appeared in reply to those notices.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a suit for accounts was filed by one Raja Lal deceased, whose legal representatives are the respondants, against Thakur Har Bux Singh, who is the appellant in this case, claiming to be a partner in the business of a brick-kiln. The document dated 26-8-1946 (Ex. 20) was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge on 17-2-1949 in evidence. This document specified the plots which were let out for running the brick-kiln for a period of three years on payment of Rs. 212-8-0 as premium. It further evidenced the payment of that amount. The document was executed by Hari Krishna Dhawan and a revenue stamp of one anna was affixed to it. The report of the Chief Inspector of Stamps is that within the meaning of Section 2 (16) of the Stamp Act the document amounted. to a lease of immovable property which also included a Kabuliat and so it was chargeable under Article 35 (SIC) of Schedule I-A of the U. P. Stamp (Amendment) Act 1943 with a stamp duty as aforesaid.

(3.) The report of the Chief Inspector of Stamps has been objected to by Sri K.S. Varma, learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent No. 4, and his ccntentions are two-fold. His primary contention is that no revision under Section 61 (1) of the Stamp Act is maintainable and no declaration under Section 61 (2) could be given where there had been no order of the Trial Court admitting the instrument as duly stamped or as one not requiring stamp duty or any order stating that it was insufficiently stamped. His second contention is that once a document has been admitted in evidence under Section 36 of the Stamp Act, the Chief Inspector of Stamps could not challenge the admissibility of the document and no duty or penalty could be claimed nor any declaration could be given by this Court. In support of this contention he has relied upon the authority of Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Surana, AIR 1961 SC 1655.