SIYA RAM Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Chief Con trolling Revenue Authority has under Sec tion 57 (1) of the Stamp Act referred the following questions to us for answer.

(2.) 25 was paid in respect of this document, and thereafter was presented before the Collector, Vara-nasi for determination of the stamp duty thereon. The Collector was not able to come to a definite conclusion regarding the nature of the document. He accordingly referred the matter to the Board under Section 56 (2) of the Stamp Act. - 2. Before the Board it was .con tended on behalf of the executants that the document in question was not an instru ment of partition as defined under Section 2 (15) of the Act, and support for this was sought from the two decisions of this Court in Bhagwana v. Gulab Kuer, AIR 1942 All 220 (FB) and Smt. Thekura v. Sukhraj Singh, 1953 All LJ 312 = (AIR 1953 All 350). The Board, however, was of the view that the document was an in strument of partition as defined in Section 2 (15) of the Stamp Act, and was charge able to stamp duty under Article 45, Sche dule 1-B thereof. The Board arrived at this view, in spite of coming to the con clusion that it was possible that the parti tion might have taken place earlier i.e. on the 27th of March, 1969. It sought sup port for its conclusion by referring to the definition of the word 'instrument' in Sec tion 2 (14) of the Act. In its view, even if a document recording the fact of parti tion is executed after the date of actual partition, it would still be an instrument of partition and liable to duty as such.

(3.) SO far as the second question is concerned, inasmuch as we have held that the document in question is not an instru ment of partition, the stamp duty paid on it, was proper.