Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 367 (AP)

Mohd. Qamruddin v. Masula Narsimhulu

2008-06-13

P.S.NARAYANA

body2008
ORDER: Heard Sri Venkat Raghu Ramulu, learned counsel representing revision petitioners and Sri Anand representing Sri Y. Ashok Raj, representing respondent. 2. This Court ordered notice before admission on 28.4.2008 and granted interim stay for a limited period. The matter is coming up for admission. 3. Sri Venkat Raghu Ramulu learned counsel representing the revision petitioners would maintain that the learned Judge failed to see that the District Collector, Mahabubnagar, had rightly rejected for impounding the alleged agreement of sale dated 24.6.1995. The counsel also would maintain that the learned Judge failed to see that the alleged agreement of sale dated 24.6.1995 is a created and concocted document by the respondent herein for the purpose of filing the suit i.e., O.S.No.8 of 2003. The counsel also pointed out that the learned Judge failed to see that the alleged agreement of sale dated 24.6.1995 was not executed by anybody and the said document was got up by the respondent to knock away the valuable property of the petitioners. The learned counsel also would maintain that the District Collector is empowered to return the document without impounding the same, as the said document is not a genuine one and, hence, the order impugned in the civil revision petition cannot be sustained. The counsel also had taken this Court through the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and also the Indian Stamp Act and further had taken this Court through the reasons, which had been recorded by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet at paras 7 and 8 of the impugned order. 4. Per contra, Sri Anand representing Sri Y. Ashok Raj would maintain that it is not within the purview of the District Collector to decide the genuineness or otherwise of the document. The limited power that can be exercised by the District Collector when a document is sent for impounding is to decide the impounding of the document which had been sent to the District Collector and not beyond thereto. The limited power that can be exercised by the District Collector when a document is sent for impounding is to decide the impounding of the document which had been sent to the District Collector and not beyond thereto. Hence, the counsel would maintain that the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet, rightly relied upon the decision of this Court in Malla Satyanarayana V. Lanka Venkata Ramanamma and others1 and came to the conclusion that such return cannot be made by the District Collector and accordingly redirected the document i.e., agreement of sale in question to be sent to the District Collector, Mahabubnagar for the purpose of impounding i.e., levying the stamp duty and penalty. Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, whatsoever. 5. The civil revision petition is filed by the revision petitioners as against the order made in I.A.No.6 of 2008 in O.S.No.8 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet. The respondent is the plaintiff. Respondent-plaintiff filed the application I.A.No.6 of 2008 under Section 151 C.P.C. read with Section 38 (2) of the Indian Stamp Act, for a redirection of sending the document i.e., agreement of sale dated 24.6.1995 to the District Collector, Mahabubnagar for the purpose of impounding and levying the proper stamp duty and penalty. It is stated that respondent-petitioner-plaintiff filed the document, the agreement of sale, in support of his case and the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet had sent the said document for the purpose of impounding to the District Collector, Mahabubnagar. The said document was returned to the court without levying the stamp duty and penalty as required by law. On the other hand, the learned District Collector observed that the document in question is not a genuine one and, hence, it does not require impounding at all and accordingly returned the said document. 6. Specific stand had been taken that the District Collector has no authority or jurisdiction to give such opinion regarding the genuineness or otherwise of the document. It is only for the competent civil court to decide such question. Hence the redirection of the nature specified supra had been prayed for by filing the application aforesaid. 7. The revision petitioners-respondents-defendants in the aforesaid suit resisted the said application justifying the stand taken by the District Collector and also reiterating that the agreement of sale is not a genuine one. Hence the redirection of the nature specified supra had been prayed for by filing the application aforesaid. 7. The revision petitioners-respondents-defendants in the aforesaid suit resisted the said application justifying the stand taken by the District Collector and also reiterating that the agreement of sale is not a genuine one. The learned Judge framed the point for consideration at para 6, further recorded reasons at paras 7 and 8 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the application to be allowed and the office was directed to send the document to the District Collector requesting the District Collector to impound the document by levying stamp duty and penalty in accordance with law preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order. The said order is challenged in the present civil revision petition. 8. The respective submissions made by the counsel already had been specified above. The counsel representing respondent strongly relied upon the decision of this Court in Malla Satyanarayana V. Lanka Venkata Ramanamma and others (1 supra) wherein the learned Judge of this Court followed AIR 1981 A.P. 274 ; AIR 2001 SC 1321 and 2002 (6) ALT 239 and the learned Judge at para 16 observed as hereunder: "In the instant case, though the Court below referred the matter to the District Collector for impounding the document after collecting the deficit stamp duty and penalty under Section 38 (2) of the Act, the Collector refused to exercise his power vested in him under Section 40 of the Act for deciding the necessary quantum of penalty payable on the deficient payment of the stamp duty, which is illegal and against law. On such refusal by the District Collector in determining the quantum of penalty, the action of the Court in imposing a penalty of 10 times compulsorily payable by the party is also illegal and unsustainable." 9. On a careful reading of the relevant provisions of the Indian Stamp Act when a document is sent for the purpose of impounding, levying the stamp duty and penalty to Revenue Authority-District Collector in the present case, the District Collector is expected to decide the same in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and cannot travel beyond thereto by entering into controversy whether the document sent by the Civil Court is genuine or not. It is needless to say that it is for the competent civil court to decide the question relating to the genuineness or otherwise of the document concerned. The authority or jurisdiction of the Revenue Authority-District Collector in the present case would be limited for the purpose of deciding the question of impounding i.e., levying the stamp duty and penalty. When that being so, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet is well justified in giving such redirection again directing the learned District Collector to carry out the duties and obligations of the District Collector as ordained by the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act. This Court does not see any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned order. 10. Accordingly the civil revision petition being devoid of merit, the same shall stand dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs. It is needless to say that the parties are at liberty to agitate the controversial question, the genuineness of the agreement of sale before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet, i.e., competent civil court.