MAHMOOD HASSAN KHAN MAHARAJ KUMAR OF MOHAMUDABAD Vs. CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this reference under Section 57 of the Indian STAMP ACT, 1899, the following question has been referred to us for our decision; (1) Whether the letter dated 25-2-1953 written by Sri Mahmood Hassan Khan to Sri Ratanchand Heerachand is a 'Bond' or (ii) Whether it is a mere hand-letter requiring no stamp duty or (iii) A surety bond or a security bond".

(2.) The facts leading to this reference are as follows: Ratanchand Heerachand. to whom the document under consideration was addressed, filed it as a piece of evidence in O. S. No. 14 of 1962 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, The Chief Judge adjudicated the document as a 'Bond' and as the plaintiff did not pay the duty and penalty required under section 35 of the Stamp Act, he impounded the same and sent it to the Inspector General of stamps,! with his letter dated June 21,1966 for levying proper duty and penalty. The Assistant Inspector General of Stamps, as Collector under the Act, after giving notice to the claimant as well as to the executant of the document, levied a stamp duty of Rs. 15, 428-57 Ps. and imposed a penalty of Rs. 77, 142-85 P. treating it as a 'bond'. Ratanchand Heerachand, who was claiming under the document preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue for revising the orders of the Assistant Inspector-General of Stamps. The Board after giving an opportunity to Mahmood Hassan Khan, dismised the revision petition holding that the do ument was a bond. Subsequently Mahmood Hassan Khan filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 1768 of 1969 in this Court and in those proceedings, he questioned the validity of some of the provisions of the STAMP ACT, 1899. By its judgment dated July 13, 1971., the High Court dismissed the writ petition. About two years thereafter, Mahmood Hassan Khan approached the Board of Revenue with a revision petition for quashing the order of the Assistant Inspector General of Stamps in which the latter had adjudicated the document as a 'bond'. The Board of Revenue took the view, that as the matter had already been decided by it earlier, Mahmood Hassan Khan should be fasked to state as to how the Board could entertain another petition and take a different view which would amount to a review and for which there was no provision in the Act. Mahmood Hassan Khan contended that he was the executant of the document and that he had to pay the duty and penalty and that he was effected by the orders of the Board. As the Board did not give him any opportunity, the earlier orders of the Board were not valid in law. After examining the legal implications, the Board entertained the revision petition, and ultimately came to the conclusion that the document under consideration was a bond At the time of the arguments, Mahmood Hassan Khan requested the Board to refer the matter to the High Court, if it came to the conclusion that the document was a bond and not a mere hand letter or surety bond, as contended by him. Thereafter, the Board referred the question consisting of these three points for our determination.

(3.) The document, which is under consideration, is dated February 25, 1953 and is addressed by Mahmood Hassan Khan to Ratanchand Heerachand. It is in the following terms: