BOARD OF REVENUE HYDERABAD Vs. VALIDITY RAM KRISHNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above case is posted before us for a decision on a reference made by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (Board of Revenue in this case) under Section 57 of the Stamp Act.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the reference may be stated. One Velvet Ramakrishnaiah and another Pasumarthi Seetharama Sastry, both residents of Vijayawada, purchased certain house property jointly under a registered sale deed on 30-11-1965. Pasumarthi Seetharama Sastry purported to execute a deed of release on 5-12-1967 in favour of Valiveti Ramakrishnaiah. The consideration recited was Rs. 9475.00-. The document was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Vijayawada, on 6-12-1967. A stamp duty of Rs. 22-50 was paid on the document on the footing that it was a release deed under the provisions of Article 46 (b) of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act ( II of 1899 ) as applicable in Andhra Pradesh. The Sub-Registrar thought that the stamp duty paid was not sufficient, as the document in question was a conveyance and not a release. The matter was referred to the District Registrar at Machlipatnam. After notice to the parties and hearing their objections, the District Registrar passed an order on 2-4-1948 holding that the document was a conveyance on sale and came under Article 20 of Schedule I. A. of the Act and directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 2,946-75. A penalty of Rs. 25.00- also was levied. There was a revision petition preferred to the Board of Revenue challenging the correctness of that order. The Board of Revenue had rejected the petition on 23-8-1968. Thereupon Valiveti Ramakrishnaiah had filed Writ Petition No. 4168 of 1968 before the High Court challenging the order of the Board of Revenue, which was the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under the Act. In the said Writ Petition, the High Court directed the respondent ( Board of Revenue ) to refer the matter under Sec. 57 of the Stamp Act. The reference was accordingly submitted by the Board of Revenue to this Court under Section 57 of the Stamp Act.

(3.) Two questions were referred for opinion by this court and they are : "(1) Whether the document No. P. 50/67 of the Sub-Registrars Office, Vijayawada, executed by Pasumarthi Seetharama Sastry in favour of Valiveti Ramakrishnaiah is a release deed and the stamp duty of Rs. 22-50 under Article 46 (b) of Schedule I-A is sufficient ? (2) Whether the document in question is a deed of " conveyance or sale " within Section 2 (10) read with Article 20 of Schedule I-A and the levy of stamp duty of Rs. 2921.25 and the penalty of Rs. 25.00- is correct ?