Judgment :- M/S.G.V.K.C. and Company and three others were adjudicated as insolvents creditor’s petition by an order of this Hon’ble Court, dated 5.10.1976. 2. Consequent on the vesting of the property in the Official Assignee, the properties second insolvent, G.Venkatasubba Rao measuring about 11 acres and 09 agricultural lands situated at Kodavallivaripalam Village, Chirala Taluk, Prakasam Andhra Pradesh and a house bearing Assessment No.2835 in Vetapalam Village, Chirala Taluk, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh were brought to public auction 12.6.1980 and again oh 31.10.1984 for the second time. But the sale was not concluded. The second insolvent ’ s son, Murali Mohan, the fourth respondent herein filed a partition in O.S.No.46 of 1980 on the file of the Sub Court at Chirala, Andhra Pradesh and mutual deliberations and discussions, the fourth respondent had agreed to purchase insolvent’s undivided half share in those two properties for Rs.1,40,000. By order 21.1.1991, this Court directed the Official Assignee to accept the offer of Murali Mohan the sale of the undivided half share of the insolvent in the property mentioned above Rs.1,40,000, granting time till 30.4.1991. The fourth respondent has agreed to withdraw partition suit filed by him on the file of the Sub-Court, Chirala and accordingly, the respondent withdrew the suit and the same, had been dismissed as not pressed 25.6.1991. The fourth respondent has also paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,40,000 as on 22.4.1991. The Official Assignee executed a sale deed on 10.7.1991 in favour fourth respondent. By letter No.262/76-B1 in I.P.No.7 of 1975, dated 11.7.1991, the Registrar, Chirala the third respondent had been requested to register the Deed Conveyance, dated 10.7.1991. When the fourth respondent presented the Deed Conveyance before the third respondent Sub Registrar, Chirala, the fourth respondent directed by the second and third respondents herein to pay surcharge at 5 per cent stamp duty, even though the stamp duty was exempted under Sec.115 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, herein after referred to as the Act. According to the respondents 3 stamp duty at 7 per cent alone has been exempted and as such, the fourth respondent was required to pay the surcharge at 5 per cent on the stamp duty or to get an order this Court, exempting him from the payment of surcharge as well. According to the respondents 3 stamp duty at 7 per cent alone has been exempted and as such, the fourth respondent was required to pay the surcharge at 5 per cent on the stamp duty or to get an order this Court, exempting him from the payment of surcharge as well. Under circumstances, the Official Assignee has filed the present application to direct respondents 1 to 3 to register all the sale deeds executed by him, including the sale dated 10.7.1991 executed in favour of the fourth respondent in respect of the lands and house mentioned above free from stamp duty and surcharge whatsoever, as provided under Sec.115 of the Act. 3. The District Registrar of Assurances, Prakasam District has filed a counter affidavit behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 on 8.9.1991. He has contended that the surcharge cent on the market value of the schedule property has to be paid under Sec. 120 of Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 as surcharge is not automatically exempted, If the duty is exempted by the Sub Registrar or sale consideration, which ever is higher accordance with the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act. He has contended that no provision has been made. for exemption of surcharge even Government and irrespective of exemption of stamp duty the surcharge has to be from the vendees of the document and that the surcharge collected in Andhra Pradesh Sub Registrar in the shape of stamps will be allocated to the credit of local bodies concerned as governed under separate enactments. 4. It is relevant to extract the last paragraph of page 2 of the counter affidavit filed on of the Respondent 1 to 3: “It is true that the conveyance deeds executed by the Official Assignee, Madras for insolvent debtors are exempt from stamp duty as provided under Sec.115 of the Insolvency Act. However, this exemption is confined to the duty leviable under the Indian Stamp only and it does not extend to the duty on transfer of property which is leviable different local bodies Act.” It is thus clear that there is no quarrel or dispute with regard to the exemption granted stamp duty as provided under Sec.115 of the Act. However, this exemption is confined to the duty leviable under the Indian Stamp only and it does not extend to the duty on transfer of property which is leviable different local bodies Act.” It is thus clear that there is no quarrel or dispute with regard to the exemption granted stamp duty as provided under Sec.115 of the Act. However, according to the respondent, this exemption is confined on the duty leviable under the Indian Stamp and it does not extend to the duty on transfer of property which is leviable under local bodies Act. Strong reliance was placed on the Full Bench decision of Andhra High Court in K.K.Rao v. District Registrar Assurances and Collector, A.I.R. 1973 This is a case in which the scope of Sec.120 of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, authorising the levy of duty on transfer of property was explained. Another decision similar matter was rendered by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Judgment in W.P,No.6803 of 1989, dated 15.12.1990. The relevant paragraphs relied the Registration Department in the writ petition is re-produced hereunder: “We have to bear in mind that the stamp duty charged and collected under the Indian Stamp Act is credited to the State Fund whereas the tax on transfer of immovable property is the tax levied and collected for the benefit of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad under the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955. It is credited to the Municipal Fund”. “Therefore, the Order granting exemption from payment of Stamp Duty cannot be said to applicable to tax on transfer of property”. “Therefore, though no stamp duty is chargeable on those instruments, tax on transfer of property can be levied and collected”. “Surcharge generally means ‘additional duty’ ‘The said expression merely indicates the mode and description of the levy namely that it is collectable as on additional stamp duty on instrument. It does not indicate that the levy of tax on transfer of property is dependent upon the levy and collection of stamp duty.” 5. “Surcharge generally means ‘additional duty’ ‘The said expression merely indicates the mode and description of the levy namely that it is collectable as on additional stamp duty on instrument. It does not indicate that the levy of tax on transfer of property is dependent upon the levy and collection of stamp duty.” 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 has argued that according to the provisions of Sec.29 of the Indian Stamp Act, the stamp duty on the sale deed is to be borne by the claimant i.e., the fourth respondent herein unless and other-wise provided for by separate agreement entered into and that since the Official Assignee is not under obligation to pay the stamp duty under Sec.29 of the Indian Stamp Act and since there is agreement to provide otherwise, the Official Assignee should have no grievance at all regards the payment of surcharge. Thus, it was contended that the fourth respondent may be directed to present the sale document with required surcharge at 5 per cent on the market value of the schedule property or on the sale consideration, whichever is higher. 6. The short question that arises for consideration in this application is whether the sale deed executed by the Official Assignee in favour of the fourth respondent of the property measuring about 11 acres and 09 cents of agricultural lands and a house bearing Assessment No.2835 in Kodavalli-varipalam Village, Chirala Taluk, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh District respectively is liable to be exempted from stamp duty as well as the surcharge as claimed by the respondents under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act. 7. I have heard the arguments of Mr.T.P.Parames-waran, learned Official Assignee of Madras and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. 8. Sec.115 of the Act reads as under: “115. Exemption from duty of transfers, etc., under this Act: (1) Every transfer, mortgage, assignment, power of attorney, proxy paper, certificate, affidavit, bond or other proceedings, instrument or writing whatsoever before or under any order of the Court, and any copy thereof, shall be exempt from payment of any stamp or other duty whatsoever. Exemption from duty of transfers, etc., under this Act: (1) Every transfer, mortgage, assignment, power of attorney, proxy paper, certificate, affidavit, bond or other proceedings, instrument or writing whatsoever before or under any order of the Court, and any copy thereof, shall be exempt from payment of any stamp or other duty whatsoever. (2) No stamp duty or fee shall chargeable for any application made by the Official Assignee to the Court under this Act, or for the drawing and issuing of any order made by the Court on such application.” It is therefore clear on the language of Sec.115 of the Act that in the case of a transfer property that is vested with the Official Assignee, no stamp duty need be paid as per provisions of the Stamp Act. It is also conceded by the respondents 1 to 3 as seen from counter-affidavit filed that the Conveyance Deeds executed by the Official Assignee, Madras for relief of insolvent debtors are exempt from Stamp Duty as provided under Sec.115 of Act. However, they say that this exemption is confined to the duty leviable under the Indian Stamp Act only and it does not extend to the duty on transfer of property which is leviable under different local bodies Act. 9. There is nothing in the Act to say that the provisions of the Act do not extend situate outside the Presidency Towns. Therefore, when Sec.115 speaks of a transfer Official Assignee under orders of this Court, it can only mean transfer of the property insolvent which had vested with the Official Assignee. Therefore, on the very Sec.115 takes within its ambit the transfer of properties of the insolvent wherever and which has become vested with the Official Assignee, consequent on the adjudication. In this view, the transfer effected by the Official Assignee of a property outside the Presidency Towns shall be exempt from Stamp duty under Sec.115 of There is no provision under the Act which limits the applicability of the provisions only to the Presidency Towns. In this connection, Sec.17 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act can be usefully referred to: Sec.17 of the Act is as under: "17. In this connection, Sec.17 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act can be usefully referred to: Sec.17 of the Act is as under: "17. Effect of order of adjudication: On the making of an order of adjudication, the property of - the insolvent wherever situate shall vest in the Official Assignee and shall divisible among his creditors, and thereafter, except as directed by this Act, no creditor whom the insolvent is indebted in respect of any debt provable in insolvency shall, during pendency of the insolvency proceedings, have any remedy against the property insolvent in respect of the debt or shall commence any suit or other legal proceeding with the leave of the Court and on such terms as the Court may impose. Provided that this section shall not affect the power of any secured creditor to realize otherwise deal with his security in the same manner as he would have been entitled realize or deal with it if this Section had not been passed." The said section provides that on the making of an order of adjudication, the property insolvent shall vest in the Official Assignee and shall become divisible among his creditors. follows that consequent on the passing of an order of adjudication, the properties insolvent situate outside the limits of the Presidency Towns also vest in the Official Assignee. Sec.7 of the Act deals with the power of the Court to decide all the questions arising Insolvency. It confers on the Court to decide all questions whatsoever whether of law which may arise in any case of insolvency coming within the cognizance of the Court, which the Court may deem it expedient or necessary to decide for the purpose of complete justice or making a complete distribution of property in any such case. decisions of our High Court can be usefully referred in this connection: They are: 1. Abdul Khader v. The Official Assignee of Madras, I.L.R.40 Mad. 810: 524; and 2. Kancherla Krishna Rao, In re., I.L.R. 51 Mad. 540. In Abdul Khader’s case, 40 Mad. 810: 36 I.C. 524, a Division Bench of our High Court, consisting of the Officiating Chief Justice Seshagiri Ayyar, it was held that: "Under Sec.7 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act (III of 1909), the High Court of in the exercise of its Insolvency Jurisdiction has jurisdiction to adjudicate on claims to immovable property situate outside. 810: 36 I.C. 524, a Division Bench of our High Court, consisting of the Officiating Chief Justice Seshagiri Ayyar, it was held that: "Under Sec.7 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act (III of 1909), the High Court of in the exercise of its Insolvency Jurisdiction has jurisdiction to adjudicate on claims to immovable property situate outside. the limits of its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction; the jurisdiction which existed under Secs.26 of 11 and 12 Vict., Cap. 21, has not been down by the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. The jurisdiction conferred by Sec.7 of the Act is of a discretionary character, and it is that the Insolvency Court will deem it expedient to try difficult questions of title; the in such cases would ordinarily ask the Official Assignee in Insolvency to establish his an ordinary Civil Court." In Kancherla Krishna Rao’s case, I.L.R. 51 Mad. 540, a Full Bench our High Court has held that Sec.7 of the Act confers jurisdiction on the High Court garnishee proceedings even when the garnishee lives outside the territorial jurisdiction Court. 10. It is therefore clear that the claims as regards the property situate outside jurisdiction of this Court could be decided by this Court. 11. Sec.68 of the Act in so far is relevant for the present case reads as follows: "68. 10. It is therefore clear that the claims as regards the property situate outside jurisdiction of this Court could be decided by this Court. 11. Sec.68 of the Act in so far is relevant for the present case reads as follows: "68. Duty and power of Official Assignee as to realization: (1) Subject to the provisions this Act the Official Assignee shall with all convenient speed, realize the property insolvent, and for that purpose may – (a) sell all or any part of the property of the insolvent; (b) give receipts for any money received by him; and may, by leave of the court, do any of the following things, namely: (c) carry on the business of the insolvent so far as may be necessary for the beneficial winding up of the same; (d) institute, defend or continue any suit or other legal proceedings relating to the property of the insolvent; (e) employ a legal practitioner or other agent to take any proceedings of do any business which may be sanctioned by the Court; (f) accept as the consideration for the sale of any property of the insolvent a sum of money payable at a future time or fully paid shares, debentures or debenture stock in any limited company subject to such stipulations as to security and otherwise as the Court thinks fit; (g) mortgage or pledge any part of the property of the insolvent for the purpose of money for the payment of his debts or for the purpose of carrying on the business; (h) refer any dispute to arbitration, and compromise all debts, claims and liabilities, terms as may be agreed upon; (i) divide in its existing form amongst the creditors according to its estimated value, property which from its peculiar nature or other special circumstances cannot readily advantageously be sold. (2) The Official Assignee shall account to the Court and pay over all monies and deal with securities in such manner as is prescribed or as the Court directs." For our present purpose Clauses (a) and (g) of Sub-sea(1) of Sec.68 of the Act are relevant to be noticed. Under Sec.68 of the Act, the Official Assignee has got the power to sell mortgage or pledge the whole or any part of the property of the insolvent wherever situate for the purpose of realizing the property of the insolvent. Under Sec.68 of the Act, the Official Assignee has got the power to sell mortgage or pledge the whole or any part of the property of the insolvent wherever situate for the purpose of realizing the property of the insolvent. In these circumstances, transfer, mortgage or assignment referred to in Sec.115 of the Act relates to a transfer, mortgage or assignment of the insolvent’s property, wherever situate and which become vested with the Official Assignee. Sec.115 of the Act cannot be so interpreted mean that only such transfer, mortgage or assignment of properties of the insolvent situate within the Presidency Towns shall alone be exempt from stamp duty. 12. I am therefore definitely of the view that under Sec.115 of the Act, all transfers, mortgages or assignments of insolvent’s property wherever situate within the Presidency Towns or outside, shall be exempt front stamp duty or other duty whatsoever. However, situation becomes complicated by reason of the fact that the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 which provides for the payment of surcharge at 5 per cent on the market value the value of the schedule property arrived at under Sec.120 of the Andhra Municipalities Act, 1965 as surcharge is not automatically exempted, if the stamp duty exempted by the third respondent Sub Registrar or sale consideration which ever is higher accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, wherein provision has been made for exemption of surcharge even by the Government. The question that arises therefore is whether the Act shall prevail over the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 reiterated the contentions in the counter affidavit filed. 13. Learned Official Assignee contended that item No.9of the concurrent list related Bankruptacy and Insolvency. Consequently, he has contended that there cannot be repugnancy between the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act and the Presidency Insolvency Act. Though Sec.115 of the Act dealt with the grant of exemption from payment of stamp duties in the case of transfer mortgage and assignments of land by the Official Assignee, the pith and substance of the legislation being bankruptcy and insolvency, the that in some respect the Act entrenches upon item No.44 of the concurrent list which been occupied by the State of Andhra Pradesh will not render it invalid. In my view, provisions contained in Sec.115 of the Act granting exemption from stamp duty in respect transfers executed by the Official Assignee falls within the law of bankruptcy and incidentally touches item No.44 in the concurrent list which related to stamp duties than duties or fees collected by means of judicial stamps, but not including rates of duty. Viewed in this light, there is no repugnancy at all between the Presidency Insolvency Act and the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965. Both operate in different fields. I am therefore of the view that no stamp duty or surcharge is liable to be paid as the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act on the sale deed executed by Official Assignee in favour of the fourth respondent for the properties which are the subject matter of this application. 14. The Full Bench decision strongly relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents to 3 in K.K.Rao v. District Registrar Assurances and Collector, A.I.R. 1973 A.P. 48, Division Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.6803 of 1989, dated December, 1990 have no relevance to the facts and circumstances of the present case they are distinguishable. Two questions were referred to the Full Bench by the Revenue, acting as the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Sec.57 of the Stamp 1899. The first question is whether the document No.P-2 of 1968 pending registration before the Sub Registrar’s Office, Bhimavaram is one of cinema hall and machinery chargeable with surcharge under Sec.120 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, addition to stamp duty payable under Art.20 of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 even though it does not involve the transfer of any right or interest in the land. The second question was whether the document is a simple conveyance chargeable with a stamp under Art.20 of Schedule 1-A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899. On the facts and circumstances the said case, the Full Bench of Andhra . Pradesh High Court held thus: “The question of applicability of Sec.120 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 the present transaction does not depend upon whether the site on which theatre machinery are located is sold or leased out to the purchaser or not. We have already noticed that the vendors who are the owners of the cinema theatre and the machinery sold immovable property alone to the purchaser. We have already noticed that the vendors who are the owners of the cinema theatre and the machinery sold immovable property alone to the purchaser. The sale deed in question therefore is that immovable property of the description mentioned in Sec.120 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965. It would therefore, be subject to surcharge under Sec.120 apart from the stamp duty already paid under Art.20 of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act. 15. The question that arises for consideration in the present case is entirely different. In present case, all the transfers, mortgage or assignments made on the insolvent’ wherever situate within the Presidency Towns or outside are exempt from stamp duty other duty whatsoever under Sec.115 of the Act. When once stamp duty itself payable, the question of payment of surcharge does not arise at all, which consequential to the payment of the stamp duty. Hence, the Full Bench Judgment will no assistance to the respondents 1 to 3 in deciding the dispute between the parties present case. Likewise the Division Bench Judgment reported in W.P.No.6803 of 1989, 15th December, 1990 is also not applicable to the facts and circum-stances of this the same is distinguishable. Hence, I reject the contention of the respondents 1 to direct them to register all the sale deeds including the sale deed dated 10.7.1991 in favour of the fourth respondent in respect of the lands situate at Kodavallivaripalam Village and the house situate at Vetapalam Village, free from stamp duty and surcharge, whatsoever, as provided under Sec.115 of the Act. 16. This application stands allowed. No costs. Application allowed.