VLMALCHAND Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference under section 57 (1) of the Indian stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Board of Revenue as the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under the Act has been made on the following facts.

(2.) ON 14-2-1974 one Rupchand son of Hajarimal resident of Badnagar executed a deed of settlement settling his property in favour of his adopted son Vimalchand, his daughter Karalabai and daughter-in-law Prembai wife of Vimalchand. This deed of settlement was executed on a stamp paper of the value of Rs. 1,763, the valuation of property having been shown as rs. 78,620. This deed of settlement was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar and was duly registered. Subsequently the Inspector of stamps and Registration, Indore Division inspected the records of the office of the Sub-Registrar and he directed the Sub-Registrar to refer the case to the sub-Divisional Officer and Collector of Stamps because in his opinion the document should have been stamped as a deed of gift and not as a deed of settlement. Thereupon the Sub-Registrar referred the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer and Collector of Stamps, Ujjain with the report that the document has been under stamped to the extent of Rs. 2,387. The Sub-Divisional Officer and Collector of Stamps, Ujjain after hearing the executant of the document held that the document was insufficiently stamped and ordered the petitioner to make good the deficiency of Rs. 2,387. He also imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000. Aggrieved by the order of the Sub-Divisional officer and Collector of Stamps, Ujjain the petitioner submitted a revision petition to the Board of Revenue under section 56 (1) of the Act. The Board of Revenue after hearing the parties was of the opinion that the Sub-Registrar had no jurisdiction to make the reference and the Sub-Divisional Officer and collector of Stamps, Ujjain bad no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order on the ground that after registering the deed of settlement the Sub-Registrar had become functus officio and bad no power to make a reference to the Sub-Divisional Officer and Collector of Stamps, Ujjain in the matter and hence made this reference.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that this reference must be accepted. Section 33 (1) of the Act provides as follows: