JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, C.C.R.A. - The Facts Are : Harpal Singh and Balwant Singh of Pilibhit are land owners of Minjumla Khasra No. 11 area 7 acres. They were to transfer their interest in the holding for a sum at Rs. 105000.00 Gurbachan Singh, Milkeet Singh and Laghubir Singh sons of Harbans Singh. Also to Smt. Karam Kaur wife of Harbans Singh. Sale-deed is not executed on the pretended excuse of absence of no dues certificate from Income Tax Officer, Pilibhit. A method is devised and Harbansh Singh is appointed Mukhtar-Aam of the vendor to help secure relevant certificate and in due time to execute a sale-deed. However, vendors had taken Rs. 105000.00 and confess to have sold the land. 2. On these facts Sub-registrar submits a reference to Additional Collector (F & R) on 11-6-1986. A show cause notice is issued to Gurbachan Singh's. An Objection in Opposition is lodged. The contention is that document : Mukhtar Nama is only for management of the land and there is not transfer of holding and possession. On 18-4-1987 Additional Collector (F & R) Pilibhit determines that Power of Attorney is a cover up of a sale-deed favouring Gurbachan Singh's. He determines the value at Rs. 1275000.00. He directs Gurbachan Singh's to pay furthermore a sum at Rs. 12088.50 as deficient stamp duty and at Rs. 36265.60 as penalty. Aggrieved by the order, Gurbachan Singh's file a revision. 3. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. It appears subsequent to this transaction a sale-deed has been executed 2-4-1987 to same persons. This is also by vendor Harpal Singh and Balwant Singh of Minjumla khasra No. 11 area 7 acres. This area was also in the prevision transaction held out as a Power of Attorney but in essence an instrument of transfer. The sale-deed is executed at Rs. 105000.00. On registration no reference is conceived under Section 47-A, Stamp Act. What is to do now? 5. Counsel for revisionist submits that it is transaction between the same parties and stamp duty on market value at Rs. 105000.00 has been paid. This comes to at Rs. 13015.00. The subsequent transfer has been registered on 28-3-1987. The contention is that case will fall clearly under Section 4 (1) Stamp Act. I agree with such a cogent contention. 5. Counsel for revisionist submits that it is transaction between the same parties and stamp duty on market value at Rs. 105000.00 has been paid. This comes to at Rs. 13015.00. The subsequent transfer has been registered on 28-3-1987. The contention is that case will fall clearly under Section 4 (1) Stamp Act. I agree with such a cogent contention. Section 4 of the Act is positive that in the case of a sale, if several instruments are employed, for completing the transaction, the principal instrument only shall be chargeable with the duty prescribed in Schedule I-B for the conveyance and each of the other instrument shall be chargeable with a duty of Rs. 5.00 instead of the duty (if any) prescribed for it in that Schedule. Sub-section (2) is also important. I says that parties may determine for themselves which of the instrument so employed shall for the purpose of sub-section (1), be deemed to be the principal instrument. 6. In the instant case the market value of the subject transferred by power of attorney was assessed at Rs. 127500.00. However the direct sale-deed dated 27-3-1987 completed the transaction and revisionist Gurbachan Singh's are treating the second transaction as the principal instrument. The stamp duty thereon is paid at a valuation set forth in the instrument. In this position no case survives to impose furthermore stamp duty and penalty as made in the order under revision. 7. Revision is allowed. Order of court below dated 18-4-1987 is set aside.