JUDGMENT G. C. Mathur, J. - The plaintiff filed document 74C-1 bearing stamp of Rs. 2.25/- and document 76A-1 bearing stamp of Rs. 2.00. The defendant made an application for impounding the documents contending that they were either sale deeds or release deeds and were insufficiently stamped. The plaintiff contended that the documents were merely agreements and were sufficiently stamped. The Munsif was of the opinion that the documents were either sale deeds or release deeds and not merely agreements. He, however, refused to impound them on the ground that they did not constitute either a valid transfer or valid surrender in the eye of law. He was of opinion that the executant's of the documents did not appear to have any rights in the land which they could transfer and, therefore, the documents were ineffective and invalid. Against the order of the Munsif, the defendant has filed this revision. 2. The Munsif has relied upon a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Crompton Engineering Co., (Madras) Ltd. v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Madras, A.I.R. 1953 Madias 764. In this case, the question was whether the document was a mortgage deed as defined under Sec. 2 (17) of the Stamp Act and was liable to duty as such. The document was not attested and not registered and, as such, could not operate as a valid mortgage. The Full Bench held that the document was not liable to stamp duty as a mortgage. The Full Bench made the following observations :- "The very difference between the definition of an instrument in Sec. 2 (14) and a mortgage deed in Sec. 2 (17) should show that the "transfer" provided for in Sec. 2 (17) is a transfer valid in law. To make a document liable to stamp duty as a mortgage deed, it is not enough if the document purports to effect a transfer. It must "transfer". The Munsif, following these observations, held that the two documents in the present case were not valid transfers in law and did not, in fact, transfer any property. This decision was explained in a subsequent Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court, in The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Madras, Board of Revenue, Madras, Referring Officer v. The Canara Industrial and Banking Syndicate Ltd., Madras, A.I.R. 1969 Madras 1. This decision was explained in a subsequent Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court, in The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Madras, Board of Revenue, Madras, Referring Officer v. The Canara Industrial and Banking Syndicate Ltd., Madras, A.I.R. 1969 Madras 1. It was held in this case that a document has to be considered as chargeable to stamp duty when it is executed according to the definition in Sec. 2(12). This Full Bench held that non-registration of a document does not affect the liability of the document to stamp duty under the Stamp Act. The general observations made by the 1953 Full Bench quoted above, were confined to the facts of that case. A Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held in Bazrami Gangaram v. Kamlabai, A.I.R. 1968 Andhra Pradesh 213. :- "For the purposes of the Stamp Act, the crucial time for determining whether an instrument chargeable with duty is duly stamped or not is before or at the t me of its execution and apart from its execution, no other formalities under any other law need be satisfied. There is no warrant for the importation of the requirements of either the Transfer of Property Act or the Registration Act to construe the documents or instruments under the Stamp Act as the latter Act itself specifically defines the terms used therein. To hold that an instrument must be a valid one under law before it is liable to stamp duty will be to ignore the requirements of the definition or to make them otiose." In this case, a mortgage deed which was unregistered was held to be liable to stamp duty. 3. The two documents filed in the present case did not suffer from any defect of execution. They were unregistered but that was immaterial for the purposes of stamp duty. The only question for consideration is whether the Court was entitled to see whether the documents were effective and valid before holsind that they were liable to stamp duty. It is necessary to notice some of the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act in order to decide this question. Sec. 2 (10) defines conveyance thus :- 2(10). Conveyance includes a conveyance on sale and every instrument by which property whether movable or immovable, is transferred inter vivos and which is not otherwise specifically provided for by Schedule I." Section 2 (12) provides "2(12). Sec. 2 (10) defines conveyance thus :- 2(10). Conveyance includes a conveyance on sale and every instrument by which property whether movable or immovable, is transferred inter vivos and which is not otherwise specifically provided for by Schedule I." Section 2 (12) provides "2(12). "Executed" and "execution'' used with reference to instruments, mean "signed" and "signature"." Section 2(14) defines instrument thus:- "2 (14). Instrument includes every document by which any right or liability is, or purports to be created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or recorded." Sec. 3 which is the charging section, makes certain "instruments" chargeable with duty. It is thus to be noticed that the duty is chargeable on an instrument and not upon a transaction or transfer. The instrument has to satisfy the definition in Sec. 2(14). It has to be a document which either creates a right or liability or purports to do so. Whether it succeeds in doing so or not is not material. Further, the instrument is required to be executed, not in accordance with the provisions of any other law but in accordance with the definition in Sec. 2 (12), that is to say, it has to be signed. Once an instrument as defined in the Stamp Act, is executed as contemplated in Sec. 2 (12), it becomes chargeable with stamp duty. Other formalities prescribed by other enactments for making the instrument operative and enforcible, are not necessary for the purposes of the Stamp Act. Nor s it necessary that the instrument executed in accordance with the Stamp Act should achieve or be capable of achieving its object. It is sufficient if the instrument even purports to affect a transfer to bring it within the mischief of the Stamp Act. As already observed, it is not the transaction or the transfer which is subject to stamp duty, but the instrument and, if the instrument is executed as prescribed and is one of the kinds contemplated by the Stamp Act, it becomes liable to stamp duty even if the transaction or the transfer fails for some reason. 4. In Anna Rao v. Bandappa, A.I.R. 1971 Mysore 63, a Full Bench of the Mysore High Court had to consider whether a document of sale is liable to stamp duty. 4. In Anna Rao v. Bandappa, A.I.R. 1971 Mysore 63, a Full Bench of the Mysore High Court had to consider whether a document of sale is liable to stamp duty. The document suffered from two infirmities, namely, (i) that it was not registered and (ii) that it was executed without the previous sanction of the Collector which was necessary for transfer of agricultural land. In spite of these two infirmities, the Full Bench held that the instrument was liable to stamp duty as a conveyance. It thus appears that an instrument need not be valid in law or meet the requirements of law as a valid document before it is chargeable to stamp duty under the Act. 5. From what has been stated above, it is clear that the two documents in the present case which were either sale deeds or deeds of surrender, could not be held not liable to stamp duty merely on the ground that the property with which they dealt could not be transferred by the executants. Both the documents were instruments as defined in the Act and had been executed as provided in the Act. If the instruments were sale deeds or deeds of surrender, they were liable to stamp duty under the Act. The Munsif was, therefore, in error in holding that the instruments were not liable to stamp duty and could be admitted in evidence. 6. The revision is accordingly allowed. The order of the Munsif is set aside. The Munsif will impound the two documents and then proceed in accordance with law. Since no one has appeared to oppose this region, there will be no order as to costs.