BHARPET MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN SAHEB Vs. DISTRICT REGISTRAR KURNOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions referred to this Court for its opinion under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act by the Board of Revenue (Chief Controlling Revenue Authority) are these: 1. What is the correct classification of the two documents? 2. What is the correct stamp duty on each document

(2.) The facts, which have given rise to this controversy arising in this enquiry, are shortly these. Applicant No. 1 executed a deed of simple mortgage for Rs. 1,00,000 (one lakh) on 6/06/1958 in favour of the Andhra Cotton Company, Secunderabad, paying a stamp duty of Rs. 1,500.00, Two days thereafter, an agreement was executed by applicant No. 1 in favour of applicant No. 2 appointing the latter as his agent for managing the Ginning and Pressing Factory situated at Adoni, Kurnool District, engrossing this document on a stamp paper of Rs. 37-50 Np., under Article 6, Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act. When this document was presented for registration, as the Registration Department had a doubt as to whether this instrument was really governed by Article 6 or whether this document together with the mortgage of 6/06/1958 would constitute a usufructuary mortgage chargeable to duty under Article 33(a) of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act, it referred the matter to the Board of Revenue, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority.

(3.) The Board of Revenue was inclined to the view that the two documents together constitute a deed of mortgage with possession. However, the Board submitted the case under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act for the decision of this Court.