COLLECTOR Vs. RAMBHAU TUKARAM NIRHALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference raises a question about an additional four-anna stamp which was paid on a sale certificate, but not at the right time or in the right manner, so it is contended by the learned Government Pleader. The amount though trilling raises a question of some practical difficulty, which formed the subject of a lengthy correspondence between the Subordinate Judge and the Collector, and is now occupying the time of three Judges of this Court, having regard to the imperative conditions of Section 57 2) of the Indian Stamp Act.

(2.) The matter arose out of a sale certificate granted by the Subordinate Judge under Order XXI, Rule 94, of the Civil Procedure Code, to an auction-purchaser so long ago as July 14, 1928. This sale certificate ought to have borne a stamp of eight annas, but in fact it had only a four-anna stamp. On that we may say at once that it was the duty of the purchaser to have borne the expense of the proper stamp having regard to Section 29 (f) of the Act and Article 18 of the first schedule. Question (a) will, therefore, be answered in the affirmative.

(3.) What next happened is this : In accordance with Section 89 (8) of the Indian Registration Act a copy of the certificate was sent by the Judge to the Sub-Registrar. He finding the stamp to be insufficient, so informed the Judge. Then under circumstances which are not clear in the case or in the correspondence, the Judge in some way got the purchaser to hand him back the certificate and had an extra four-anna stamp put on it and subsequently informed the Sub- Registrar accordingly.