This reference has been made by the learned Collector, Jodhpur in a proceeding which started in his court under sec. 31 of the Indian Stamp Act. Neither the learned counsel for the applicant nor the Government Advocate support this reference. It appears that a draft of an instrument was presented before the learned Collector for adjudication of the Stamp Duty under sec. 31 of the Indian Stamp Act. The learned Collector construed the document in his own way but instead of giving adjudication as to the Stamp duty leviable on it which he was competent to do under sec. 31 of the Indian Stamp Act, referred the matter to the Board as Chief Controlling Authority in the following words. "As the matter is not free from doubt the case is referred to the Board of Revenue for decision whether the instrument may be treated as a deed of acknowledgment or an agreement or a deed of partition." Apparently in making this reference the learned Collector was acting under sec. 56(2) of the Indian Stamp Act which is applicable only when the Collector acting under sec. 31, 40 or 41 feels doubt as to the amount of duty with which an instrument is chargeable. In this case the Collector has not made a reference about the amount of duty but has sought the opinion of this Court on the interpretation of the instrument which was presented to him for adjudication. Such a reference is not contemplated under the provisions of sec. 56 (2). Under Sec. 3C a Collector should make up his mind and decide for himself as to the nature of the document which is presented to him for adjudication for the Stamp Duty leviable on it Sec. 56(2) confers powers upon the Board of Revenue to deal with instruments which are already in existence and which have not been made the subject of action by the Collector under secs 31, 40 and 41 and not with instruments which may or may not hereafter come into existence. As there was only a draft of the instrument presented before the Collector, which may or may not come into existence a reference to the Board is clearly incompetent. The result is that the reference is answered accordingly and the case is sent back to the Collector to proceed in accordance with the clear provisions of sec. 31 of the Act.