MANTHANA RAMANAMMA Vs. USHODAYA PUBLICATIONS PRIVATE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M.Ramanamma laid the suit against Messrs. Ushodaya Publications Private Limited (the firm). At the trial of the suit, Vishnu Murthy was. one of the witnesses. When he was in the box, attempt was made to elicit information by the firm as respects an agreement. The document was disputed by Ramanamma, to be a lease deed not an agreement, it requires additional stamp duty to be paid and penalty he levied. When such an objection was raised as to the admissibility of the agreement the firm prayed the deed be transmitted to the District Collector for adjudication under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act (II of 1899). The lower Court ordered the document be sent to the District Collector. The order is assailed in this civil revision petition by Ramanamma principally, on the ground that whilst a document is transmitted, it is argued the lower Court did not express opinion whether the document was to a lease; what stamp duty and penalty are leviable,. It is further argued on placing reliance upon clause (2) of section 38, especially, on the words "so impounding" that it is necessary for Courts when a document is sent to the District Collector to record its opinion so to the nature of document, what stamp fee is leviable. The Counsel emphasised the words "so impounding" in clause (2) of section 38 requires the Court to express opinion.

(2.) When a document is required to be adduced as evidence the Court under clause (1) of section 38, construes the document, decides the duty revable and penalty is levied under clause (1) of that section, is obvious. This part is not in dispute. This aspect is made, dear in the decision in Vasudevan Mallan Lakshmana Millan v. Krishna Ramnath and others. It may not be necessary to enumerate, the contingencies when Courts are called upon to consider documents under Act (II of 1899). Whether it is the day, primarily of the revenue Courts or that of civil Courts, on this guestion, it may not be necessary to express a final opinion in this case. Before the Court when a document is not adduced as evidence. It is open for a party to request it to be sent to the District Collector for adjudication as happened in the case. When such request is acceded and document is transmitted, in such a case, no opinion need be expressed by the Courts as to the amount of fee leviable on the document. The case cited in Y. Peda Venkayya v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur and another, covers duties of the Collector under section 40 of the Act after the document is received by the Revenue Court.

(3.) It is next argued as to the meaning of the words "so impounding" hi the clause. The learned Counsel for Ramanamma argued the word "impounding" is not used in one sense through out the Act. Section 33 was read to show, impounding any instrument under this section was used with reference to duty leviable. The firm relied on clause (3) of section 40 to contend the words "return it to the impounding Officer" indicating a ministerial act. The word "impounding" is defined by P. G. Osborn in "Concise Law Dictionary" to mean "Toput distrained cattle or other goods in a pound or to keep them as security to seize". The word "impounding" in clause (2) in my view, is used in the sense of "seizure" of document. In that view, there is no error in the order under revision. The civil revision petition fails and is dismissed no costs. Revision dismissed.