Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1179 (AP)

Devarakonda Shankara Murthy v. Vemula Rajakmallu

2011-12-22

G.V.SEETHAPATHY

body2011
Judgment : 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 30.03.2011 in OS No.15 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, wherein the learned Junior Civil Judge, over ruled the objection raised by the learned counsel for the defendants and permitted the document dated 01.06.2003 to be admitted in evidence. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed suit against the petitioners for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-due under a chit transaction. The petitioners-defendants filed written statement, contesting the suit. At the time of trial, when the plaintiff sought to exhibit a document dated 01.06.2003 in evidence, which was impounded by the Revenue Divisional Officer, under section 32 of the Stamp Act, vide certificate No.C/5534/05 dated 19.10.2005. As per the said certificate, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar, impounded the document on payment of Rs.3015/-by the plaintiff towards stamp duty and penalty under Article 20 of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act. The defendants raised an objection stating that the document was not properly impounded. The plaintiff contended before the trial court that as the document was already impounded by the Revenue Divisional Officer and certificate was appended regarding payment of stamp duty and penalty and the same has become final and conclusive, the learned Junior Civil Judge, over ruled the contention of the defendants and permitted the admissibility of the document relying upon the decision of this court in ‘Sunkari Malakondaiah v. Sreekaram Malakondaiah’ [ 1998(2) ALT 41 ], wherein this court held that ‘once the procedure is followed under sections 31 and 32 of the Stamp Act and Collector issues certificate under section 32 of the Act, that becomes conclusive and by virtue of clause (e) of proviso to Section 35, the admissibility of the document cannot be challenged’. 4. Section 40(1) (b) states that when the Collector impounds the instrument under section 33 and he is of the opinion that such instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped, he shall require the payment of the proper duty or the amount required to make up the same, together with a penalty not exceeding ten times of the duty. Section 42(1) of the Act states that when the duty and penalty in respect of the instrument have been paid inter-alia under section 40, the person admitting such instrument in evidence or the Collector, as the case may be, shall certify by endorsement thereon that the proper duty and penalty have been paid in respect thereof. Sub-section(2) of Section 42 states that every instrument so endorsed shall thereupon be admissible in evidence, and may be registered and acted upon and authenticated as if it has been duly stamped. 5. Thus, when once the certificate is appended on the document by the Collector to the effect that proper duty and penalty have been levied and collected, it gets admissible and capable of being acted upon as if it has been duly stamped. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants would contend that the Revenue Divisional Officer has no authority to impound the document under section 32 of the Indian Stamp Act and it was only the District Collector, who was competent authority and therefore, the certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar, has no value or effect. In that connection he relied upon the decision in ‘G.Ramesh v. Revenue Divisional Officer 2006(6) ALT 476 , wherein it was observed that ‘no notification issued by the Government under section 2(9)(b) was brought to the notice of this court delegating their powers to the Chief Controlling Revue Authority or any notification issued by the latter under section 76-A of the Stamp Act in exercise of such delegated powers’. It was further observed that ‘the Government or the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority have not issued any notification authorizing the Revenue Divisional Officer to exercise powers exercisable by the District Collector under sections 33, 38 and 40 of the Stamp Act, any enquiry contemplated or being conducted by the respondent therein i.e., Revenue Divisional officer, Nalgonda was without jurisdiction’. 7. It is however, brought to the notice of this court that the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, had issued a Gazette Notification divesting the Revenue Divisional Officer’s powers as Collector/ District Registrars in Letter No.S1/19311/2007 dated 27.02.2008. 7. It is however, brought to the notice of this court that the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, had issued a Gazette Notification divesting the Revenue Divisional Officer’s powers as Collector/ District Registrars in Letter No.S1/19311/2007 dated 27.02.2008. The notification reads thus: “In exercise of the powers conferred under clause (b) of the sub-section (9) of Section 2 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and in terms of para 6 of the G.O.Ms.No.587, Revenue (Regn.1), dated 17.07.1996, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and the Commissioner & Inspector General of Registration and Stamps hereby withdraw the powers of the Sub-Collectors (Head Assistant Collectors), Asst. Collectors and Deputy Collectors/R.D.Os. in charge of Divisions, conferred under sections 40, 41, and 42 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.’ 8. The above notification therefore purports to withdraw the powers conferred earlier on the Sub Collectors, Assistant Collectors, Deputy Collectors and Revenue Divisional officers, in-charge of the divisions under section 40, 41, 42 of the Stamp Act with effect from 27.02.2008. The withdrawal of such powers necessarily pre-supposes conferment of such powers among others on the Revenue Divisional Officer and they are continued till 27.02.2008 when they were withdrawn. It is therefore clear that the Revenue Divisional Officers, who were previously authorized to perform the duties of the Collector, however were divested of the same by Notification dated 27.02.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that such notification is extracted in the text and the bare Act of the Stamp Act 1899 and the Registration Act 1908, 11th Edition 2011 (brought out by Sri P.V.Rama Raju). 9. In the present case, the document is dated 01.06.2003 and the same was impounded by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 19.10.2005, which was prior to withdrawal of the powers of the Revenue Divisional Officer under section 2(9)(b) of the Act. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Revenue Divisional Officer had no competent or authority to impound the document on the relevant date is therefore untenable. The certificate appended to the document, which was duly impounded by the Revenue Divisional Officer, who was having necessary authority at the relevant time is therefore valid and it has attained finality. The objection raised by the petitioners against admission of the said document in evidence was therefore rightly over ruled by the trial court. The certificate appended to the document, which was duly impounded by the Revenue Divisional Officer, who was having necessary authority at the relevant time is therefore valid and it has attained finality. The objection raised by the petitioners against admission of the said document in evidence was therefore rightly over ruled by the trial court. The impugned order admitting the document dated 01.06.2003 in evidence does not therefore call for any interference. 11. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.