v. S. Deshpande, J. ( 1 ) THE question REFERRED TO to us for opinion under section 57 (2) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is:- "whether the instrument (Annexure A) is a deed of declaration of trust, chargeable to stamp duty under Article 64 of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act or is a deed of settlement within the meaning of section 2 (24) of the Act ?". The deed opens with the following recitals :- "whereas the creation of a Charitable Trust for the real benefit of the public has been the dream of the Founder; And Whereas the Founder has accordingly created a Charitable Trust having appointed himself as first Trustee and has dedicated and endowed upon Trust his various assets and. properties,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . it is considered desirable to execute a formal deed of Trust". ( 2 ) THE Founder then proceeds to declare that the business and the properties described in the deed shall no longer be the personal business or property of the Founder or any other person but shall be held in Trust. The objects of the Trust are of a public and charitable nature. The Founder of the Trust is to be sole trustee with power to appoint co-trustees who will have full power to manage the income of the trust properties. ( 3 ) WHILE the Founder trustee contends that the deed is a declaration of Trust and as such chargeable only to a comparatively small stamp duty not exceeding the maximum fixed under Article 64 of Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act, the Revenue is of the opinion that the deed is chargeable to stamp duty as an instrument of settlement. under Article 58 of the said Schedule, the duty being the same as the duty on a Bond for a sum equal to the amount or value of the property settled in the deed of settlement. Since the dispute has arisen mainly because of the smaller and the higher stamp duties payable under these two articles, it may be mentioned here that even a higher scale of stamp duty is chargeable for a conveyance under Article 23 of the Schedule. Since the dispute has arisen mainly because of the smaller and the higher stamp duties payable under these two articles, it may be mentioned here that even a higher scale of stamp duty is chargeable for a conveyance under Article 23 of the Schedule. The legislative policy seems to be that a conveyance such as the sale or a gift being outright transfers either for valuable consideration or for love and affection, the stamp duty on them should be high under Article 23 and 33. Next comes the settlement which is defined in section 2 (24) of the Stamp Act which is as follows :- "settlement" means any non-testamentary disposition, in writing, of movable or immovable property made- (a) in consideration of marriage, (b) for the purpose of distributing property of the settlor among his family or those for whom he desires to provide, or for the purpose of providing for some person dependent on him, or (c) for any religious or charitable purpose; and includes an agreement in writing to make such a disposition and, where any such disposition has not been made in writing, any instrument recording, whether by way of declaration of trust or otherwise, the terms of any such disposition. ( 4 ) AS the settlement is different from an ordinary transfer or conveyance and is actuated with a desire to benefit some one other than the settlor, the stamp duty on it is half of the duty on conveyance. Last comes the Trust which is also made for the benefit of other by the creator of the Trust. The scope of the Trust is more limited than the scope of the settlement and the stamp duty chargeable on an instrument of trust is, therefore, even less than the one chargeable on an instrument of settlement. ( 5 ) THE word "trust" is not defined in the Stamp Act, 1899. It may, therefore, be taken to have been used in the Stamp Act in its popular sense similar to its meaning in the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. Section 1 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, states that "nothing herein contained. . . . . . . . . applies to public or private religious or charitable endowments". It may, therefore, be taken to have been used in the Stamp Act in its popular sense similar to its meaning in the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. Section 1 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, states that "nothing herein contained. . . . . . . . . applies to public or private religious or charitable endowments". It would appear, therefore, that religious or charitable endowments, whether public or private, are excluded from the purview of "trust" chargeable to duty under Article 64 of Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act. Further, the definition of "settlement" in section 2 (24) expressly includes a settlement "for any religious or charitable purpose. . . . . . . . . in writing. . . . . . . . . . . . whether by way of declaration of trust or otherwise". Even if the word "trust" in Article 64 is regarded as having the same meaning as it has in the Trusts Act. still "public or private religious or charitable endowments" are excluded by section I of the Trusts Act from the scope of that Act and the "trust" as understood in that Act does not include religious or charitable endowments. The deed under examination is expressly entitled to be a charitable trust. In view of section 1of the Trusts Act, it falls outside the ambit of "trust" chargeable to duty under Article 64 of the Schedule to the Stamp Act. On the other hand, it is expressly cover- definition of "settlement" in section 2 (24) of the Stamp Act. Non-testamentary disposition of movable or immovable property made for the three purposes specified in clauses (a) (b) and (c) of section 2 (24) have to be regarded as "settlement" whether they are made by way of a declaration of trust or otherwise. It would be true to say, therefore, that while a trust made for the purposes specified in section 2 (24) would always be a settlement, the converse may not be true. That is to say, a settlement made for any of these three purposes may be made either by way of a trust or otherwise. The reason why a "settlement" has a wider connotation than a "trust" is to be found in the history of these two concepts. ( 6 ) THE expression "settlement" has originated in the English law of real estate. The reason why a "settlement" has a wider connotation than a "trust" is to be found in the history of these two concepts. ( 6 ) THE expression "settlement" has originated in the English law of real estate. Historically, "settlement" was a device adopted by the English landed gentry to order the future destiny of their lands and to prevent them from being sold out of theirfamily. The creation of a setlement determined the tenure by which an estate or interest in land may be held. An estate or interest prescribed the length of time for which a person was entitled to hold land such as, fee simple (virtually for ever) or in Tail (for as long as he and his descendants lived), for life or for a period of years. Formerly, the capacity of a land owner at common law to create- future interests was restricted only to the simplest forms of settlement. This was liberalised by coming into vogue of the device of trust which enabled the creation of equitable estate. The 1equitable estate was a pliable instrument that could be moulded into suitable forms to extend the modes of dealing with property, i. e. . of settlement. ( 7 ) FROM its inception, therefore, "settlement" has a larger ambition "trust". This is reflected in the definition of "settlement" in section 2 (24) of the Stamp Act which ineludes instruments made "whether by way of declaration of trust or otherwise". In fact. settlement may be of other kinds than those specified in section 2 (24 ). They can also be made differently such as by "will". They are excluded from the definition of section 2 (24 ). ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the Founder trustee argued that accord- ing to section 6 of the Trusts Act, a trust is created by transfer of the trust property to the trustee unless the author of the trust is himself to be the trustee. He argued that the Founder trustee being himself the author of the trust, there is no transfer of property made by the deed in question. The word "disposition" used in the definition of "settlement" means transfer of property. As there is no transfer of property made by the deed in question, it is not a deed of "settlement". This argument is not convincing. The word "disposition" used in the definition of "settlement" means transfer of property. As there is no transfer of property made by the deed in question, it is not a deed of "settlement". This argument is not convincing. Firstly, the disposition of property made by the deed cannot be a "trust" according to the Trust Act inasmuch as it is made for a charitable purpose. Even if, therefore, it is made by way of a trust, it is a charitable trust and as such outside the Trusts Act. Secondly, the word "disposition" is not. restricted to a transfer as such. It seems to have a very wide connotation. For instance, in section 188 (17) of the English Law of Property Act, 1922, "disposition" includes a conveyance also a device, bequest and an appointment of property contained in a will which are to take effect in equity only, and "dispose of" has a corresponding meaning. In section 43 of the English Universities and Colleges Estates Act, 1925, the words "disposition" and "conveyance" include a mortgage, charge by way of legal mortgage, lease, assent. vesting declaration, vesting instrument, disclaimer, release and every other assurance except a will. In Goli Eswariah v. Commissioner of Gift Tax, Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1970 SC 1722 (1 ). the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the meaning of the word "disposition" used in section 2 (24) of the Gift Tax Act. 1958. In paragraph 12. their Lordships observed as follows:- "the word disposition is not a term of law. Further it has no precise meaning. Its meaning has to be gathered from the context in which it is used. " ( 9 ) IN view of this wide meaning of which the word "disposition" is capable the meaning of "settlement" cannot be restricted to any particular kind of dealing with property or money. On the other hand, whatever is included in the definition in section 2 (24) has to be regarded as a "settlement" for the purposes of the Stamp Act. It is inevitable, therefore, that many charitable trusts would be included in it. In fact, there is no article in the Schedule specifically dealing with a charitable trust. On the other hand, whatever is included in the definition in section 2 (24) has to be regarded as a "settlement" for the purposes of the Stamp Act. It is inevitable, therefore, that many charitable trusts would be included in it. In fact, there is no article in the Schedule specifically dealing with a charitable trust. It is not surprising, therefore, that a charitable trust like the one created by the deed in question is covered by section 2 (24) and is chargeable to duty under Article 58 of Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act. ( 10 ) FURTHER, section 6 of the Stamp Act says that when an instrument falls within two or more of the descriptions in Schedule I, it shall be chargeable with the highest of such duties. Even, there- tore, when an instrument is covered by both Article 58 and Article 64 of the Stamp Act, it would be chargeable under Article 58 as the duty chargeable thereunder is higher than the duty chargeable under Article 64. ( 11 ) WE are, therefore, of the view that the deed in question is a "settlement" chargeable under Article 58 of Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act and not under Article 64 thereof. ( 12 ) REFERENCE answered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.