MIDDE VARAPRASADA RAO Vs. COLLECTOR OF KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, namely, the Board of Revenue, Andhra Pradesh, under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act.

(2.) The reference arises in the following circumstances. A document was executed on 28-2-1950, styled as an agreement between one Midde Varaprasada Rao on the one hand and Kanukolanu Venkatasubrahmaniam, Kanukolanu Venkata Narasimha Rao, Subbineni Raghavayya and Thummala Kumaraswam; on the other. The purpose of the document was the completion of the construction of an unfinished cinema hall and the subsequent management of the said cinema hall after its completion by the aforesaid four persons. It was recited in that document that the said cinema hall which was, partially constructed, together with the site should be put in possession of these four individuals and that they should spend Rs. 40,000.00 for completing the construction of the cinema hall and for providing the furniture and equipment necessary for running the cinema. It was also stipulated that in the event of more money being required for completing it the persons referred to above should also advance such amount after giving notice to Midde Varaprasada Rao and that they should manage the cinema. Clause (6) provided that the said K. V. Narasimha Rao etc., should have mortgage rights over the properties described in A and A-1 schedules and B schedule together with the machinery fittings etc., and that the title deeds relating to the said property were handed over by Midde Varaprasada Rao to the four persons referred to above. The document provided for the execution of necessary documents subject to certain conditions prescribed in the document.

(3.) This document was engrossed on a stamp paper of Rs. 1-8-0 and presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Masulipatnarn. The Sub-Registrar felt a doubt as to the sufficiency of the stamp duty and referred the mailer to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Masulipatnam. The Revenue Divisional Officer construed the document as a mere agreement and opined that the stamp duty paid was sufficient. Not being satisfied with this opinion, the Sub-Registrar referred the matter to the Collector of Krishna District who interpreted the document as a usufructuary mortgage and impounded it, holding that a stamp duty of Rs. 4,800.00 was payable. A revision petition to the Board of Revenue by one of the parties proved unsuccessful.