Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1097 (AP)

Moizuddin Ahmed v. Durga Bai

2008-12-23

G.YETHIRAJULU

body2008
JUDGMENT : This revision petition has been filed by the respondents in R.C.No.3 of 1987 on the file of the court of the Junior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad, Medak District. The R.C was filed by the petitioners for eviction of the respondents herein. In the said R.C, I.A No.80 of 2008 was filed by the revision petitioners under Sections 31 and 32 of the Indian Stamp Act to send the agreement of sale dated 20.12.1975 and the simple sale deed dated 26.1.1976 to the Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy to certify by making an endorsement on the documents that the stamp duty is collected and the same are impounded as required under Section 32 of the Indian Stamp Act. The respondent herein resisted the application by contending that the documents were already sent to the District Collector under Section 38 (2) of the Indian Stamp Act for impounding, and accordingly they were impounded by way of collecting stamp duty and penalty. Therefore, there was no necessity of sending those documents once again to the Collector. The lower Court dismissed the application by observing that the stamp duty and penalty as already been collected by the District Collector and returned the documents to the Court along with a covering letter stating that those documents were impounded and collected stamp duty as per law. Being aggrieved by the order of the lower Court, the revision petitioners preferred the present revision petition contending that under Section 32 of the Indian Stamp Act an endorsement has to be made by the Collector that it is duly impounded and that the stamp duty and penalty are collected. Therefore, the mere collection of stamp duty and penalty by the Collector and returning the document with a covering letter that the stamp duty and penalty has been collected itself is not sufficient. Therefore, he requested to set aside the order passed by the lower Court and direct the lower Court to send the document for the purpose of endorsement by the Collector. Therefore, he requested to set aside the order passed by the lower Court and direct the lower Court to send the document for the purpose of endorsement by the Collector. Section 32 of the Indian Stamp Act reads as follows:- "Certificate by Collector:- (1) When an instrument brought to the Collector under Section 31, is, in his opinion, one of a description chargeable with duty, and (a) the Collector determines that it is already fully stamped, or (b) the duty determined by the Collector under Section 31, or such a sum as, with the duty already paid on respect of the instrument, is equal to the duty so determined, has been paid, the Collector shall certify by endorsement on such instrument that the full duty (stating the amount) with which it is chargeable has been paid. (2) When such instruments is, in his opinion, not chargeable with duty, the Collector shall certify in manner aforesaid that such instrument is not so chargeable. (3) Any instrument upon which an endorsement has been made under this section, shall be deemed to be duly stamped or not chargeable with duty, as the case may be: and, if chargeable with duty, shall be receivable in evidence or otherwise, and may be acted upon and registered as if it had been originally duly stamped: Provided that nothing in this section shall authorise the Collector to endorse- (a) Any instrument executed or first executed in India and brought to him after the expiration of one month from the date of its execution or first execution, as the case may be; (b) any instrument executed or first executed out of India and brought to him after the expiration of three months after it has been first received in India; or (c) any instrument chargeable Vide A.P. Act 19 of 1959 and 10 of 1967. [with the duty of twenty paise or a mortgage of a crop (Article 36 (a) of Schedule I-A) chargeable under Clauses (aa) or (bb) or Section 3 with a duty of forty paise or any bill of exchange or promissory note, when brought to him, after the drawing or execution thereof, on paper not duly stamped." As per sub-section (1) of Section 32, the Collector shall certify by making an endorsement on such instrument that the full stamp duty with which it is chargeable has been paid, but it is represented by the counsel for the revision petitioners that such endorsement was not made on the reverse of the documents. Since Section 32 (1) expressly provided that the Collector has to certify by way of endorsement on the instrument, it is essential to send the document to the Collector for making such endorsement. The lower Court by gaining an impression that the covering letter enclosed to the instrument is sufficient to show that the stamp duty and penalty has been paid. But in the light of the mandatory provision under Section 32 (1), it is required to be sent to the Collector for making such endorsement as required under the above Section of law. In the light of the above circumstances, I am inclined to allow the revision petition, and the same is accordingly allowed. The order dated 11.06.2008 passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.80 of 2008 is set aside. The said I.A No.80 of 2008 is allowed. The lower Court is directed to send those documents to the District Collector with a request to the Collector to make endorsement on the instruments as required under Section 32 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act.