Short Note : The petitioner was given a notice to show cause why deficit stamp duty and penalty be not recovered from him. Sushila Devi, respondent No.4 was examined and she stated that the consideration of the property sought to be sold by the deed was Rs. 7,000. The petitioner was asked to pay Rs. 260 as the deficit stamp duty and Rs. 2,600 as penalty. The Sub-Divisional Officer found that the duty was payable by the purchaser and, therefore, ought to be recovered from the purchaser-petitioner; secondly, that the consideration as appearing from the document was Rs. 7,000 and, therefore, it was stamped with deficit stamp duty. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order, moved the Board of Revenue which was the Chief controlling revenue authority. The Board confirmed the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hence the purchaser has come up before this Court challenging the decision impounding the document and imposing the penalty. 2. The contention advanced before us is that neither the Sub-Registrar nor the Sub-Divisional Officer had any power under section 27 to make enquiry as to the correctness of the valuation indicated in the document. The contention is that the Collector had no power to take the evidence and to enquire into the fact whether the duty is commensurate with the value set forth in the instrument. The Collector could not take evidence to find out the true consideration. Reliance was placed on a Supreme Court decision in Himalaya House Co. Ltd. v. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and another, AIR 1972 SC 899 . Held: The document itself shown that the consideration was Rs. 7000. The case does not fall under section 27 of the Indian Stamp Act. The document clearly bears the endorsement of Sushila Devi that the consideration was Rs. 7000 and the Sub-Registrar could not shut his eyes to this endorsement. The document has to be read as a whole to find out as to what was the true consideration for the purpose of valuing the deed of conveyance. The Sub-Registrar, in our opinion, was right in coming to the conclusion that the consideration was Rs. 7,000 on the basis of the endorsement of Sushila Devi who is the seller of the property. The case will clearly fall under section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act. The decision in Himalaya House Co. The Sub-Registrar, in our opinion, was right in coming to the conclusion that the consideration was Rs. 7,000 on the basis of the endorsement of Sushila Devi who is the seller of the property. The case will clearly fall under section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act. The decision in Himalaya House Co. Ltd.'s case (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the case. In fact, as indicated in the case, the value of the consideration must be taken to be one as set forth in the conveyance deed. The document in question, as stated above, referred to the consideration of the properly as Rs. 7000. The estimate of the consideration in the present case is not arrived at on the basis of any condition or a previous contract but from the fact that the deed as it stands, mentions it and not from any collateral circumstances. The Sub-Registrar was not embarking on any enquiry with regard to the market value of the property covered by the document and proceeding to assess the valuation but the agreement read as a whole showed that the consideration was Rs. 7000. AIR 1972 SC 899 distinguished. Petition dismissed.