Judgment :- 1. The deed of conveyance executed by the Respondent for consideration of Rs. 3,500/- was stamped for. purpose of stamp duty under Art.21 of the Kerala Stamp Act, on the amount or value of the consideration at the rate specified in the Article. On objection being taken, to the sufficiency of the stamp duty, the Collector held that stamp duty had to be levied on the market-value of the property as assessed by the Tahsildar in his report, viz., Rs. 48,000/-. The Respondent preferred an appeal to the District Court under S.45-A Clause (4) of the Act. The District Court took the view that the Collector's action was unjustified and his order was unsustainable having regard to the provisions in the Stamp Act. This view of the District Judge has been canvassed in this revision petition. 2. We may usefully extract Art.21, 22, 29 and 31 of the Stamp Act, which read as follows: "21. Conveyance as defined by S.2 (d), other Five rupees for every Rs. 100 than a conveyance specified in No. 22, not being a trans- or part thereof of the amount fer charged or exempted under No. 55. or value of the consideration for such conveyance. 22. Conveyance (as defined by S.2 (d). not being Seven rupees fifty paise for a transfer charged or exempted under No. 55 of immova- every Rs. 100 or part thereof ble property situated within the following Municipal of the amount or value of the Corporations and Municipalities, namely, Trivandrum, consideration for such con-Calicut, Cochin, Quilon, Alleppey, Kottayam, Alwaye, veyance. Trichur, Palghat, Tellicherry and Cananore. 23 to 28 x x x x x Table:#1 S. 28 of the Act requires that the consideration and all other facts and circumstances affecting the chargeability of any instrument shall be fully and truly set forth therein. And, S.45-A allows the Collector to determine the correctness of the value or consideration of any instrument within two years from the date of registration. Having regard to the language used in Art.21, viz. stamp duty had to be paid on the amount or value of the consideration for such conveyance, it was not open to the Collector to direct payment of stamp duty on the market value of the property as assessed by the Tahsildar in his report. Having regard to the language used in Art.21, viz. stamp duty had to be paid on the amount or value of the consideration for such conveyance, it was not open to the Collector to direct payment of stamp duty on the market value of the property as assessed by the Tahsildar in his report. It might have been open to the Collector to find that the consideration had not been duly and correctly stated as required by S.28 and to direct an investigation under S.45-A(2) and to take action accordingly. But as pointed out by Counsel for the Respondent, there was no such case and no action on the basis of the Section was taken. Therefore, the finding of the Collector that stamp duty had to be paid on the market-value was unjustified and was rightly vacated by the District Judge. 3. The learned Advocate General fairly drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Himalaya House Co. Ltd. v. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority & Another (AIR. 1972 S.C.899), where the provisions of the Central Stamp Act were considered. In that Act as considered by the Supreme Court, there was no provision which empowered the Revenue to make an independent enquiry of the value of the property conveyed for determining the duty chargeable. Art.23 of that Act corresponds to Art.21 of the Kerala Act. The Supreme Court referred to a series of decisions which bad taken the view that in order to see whether a document had been sufficiently stamped, the document itself as it stands had to be looked at and not any collateral facts or circumstances. This view taken by the Courts was endorsed and accepted as correct by the Supreme Court on the principle of stare decisis. Such being the principle in the absence of appropriate legislative amendment to Art.21 of the Kerala Stamp Act, the view taken by the learned District Judge is correct. We dismiss this revision petition, but without costs. 4. We record our grateful thanks to the learned Advocate General for the assistance offered by him in the hearing of this revision petition.