Judgment ( 1. ) THIS order will also govern disposal of W. P. No. 5067/2006, W. P. No. 5068/2006, W. P. No. 5069/2006 and W. P. No. 5071/2006. ( 2. ) BY this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, order passed by the Registering Officer under section 31 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the other orders passed in appeal, are called in question. There are analogous petitions, which have been heard together and all these petitions are being disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of this order, facts are taken from W. P. No. 5073/2006. ( 3. ) THE M. P. Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'Board') has come before this Court contending that as per the requirement, the petitioner-Board has taken loan from the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'LIC') and for the purposes of securing the said loan, the properties were mortgaged by the petitioner. THEre was an outstanding loan also and for the purpose of further securing the said loan, recital was made in the mortgage deed. It is contended by the petitioner that since the fresh loan was only for Rs. 15.24 crores, in terms of the conditions mentioned in the acceptance letter of the LIC, the security was furnished by mortgaging the properties of the petitioner for the said amount. However, as outstanding loan was already secured by executing the mortgage deeds earlier, the recital was only made that the said amount of earlier loan is also secured by the mortgage subsequently done. It is further contended that because earlier mortgage was secured, the petitioner was required to pay only one stamp duty as per section 6 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') and was not liable to pay the stamp duty on two different heads. THE matter was referred to the Collector of Stamps, who passed an order directing that the petitioner was required to pay stamp duty on both the heads, i.e. stamp duty on mortgage of property securing the loan of Rs.15.24 crores under Article 32-B(2) of the Act and for the outstanding loan amounting to Rs. 68,89,49,967/- under the provisions of Schedule 40C of the Act. 68,89,49,967/- under the provisions of Schedule 40C of the Act. It is contended that because such a stamp duty was charged for registration of one mortgage- deed, the petitioner was required to file an appeal before the Board of Revenue. However, the Board of Revenue has dismissed the appeal on the ground that powers, which were vested in it under section 76-A of the Act as Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, have been delegated to the Inspector General of Registration and Superintendent of Stamps, Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the Revenue Board was not competent to hear the appeal. Such an order was challenged in a writ petition before this Court and the said writ petition was allowed directing the Board of Revenue to decide the appeal of the petitioner on merits. Now since the appeal has been dismissed, affirming the order of Collector of Stamps, this writ petition has been filed. ( 4. ) THE main contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that there are two different provisions made under section 5 and section 6 of the Act. Section 5 applies in a case where there are more than one distinct matters chargeable with the stamp duty comprising in an instrument sought to be registered and in that case the aggregate stamp duty treating as if all the distinct matters are to be registered separately, is required to be paid. However, in case there is only one instrument framed as to come within two or more of the descriptions in Schedule 1 or Schedule 1A as the case may be, the stamp duty would be charged only with the highest of such duties and no separate stamp duty for each matter is required to be paid. THE contention raised is that if the instrument of mortgage is read, it will be clear that there was only one matter for which the mortgage was being executed, i.e. the security of the fresh loan which was taken from the LIC and, therefore, charge of additional stamp duty for the reference of mortgage of the property for outstanding loan was not to be made. Thus, it is contended that order was erroneously passed by the Collector of Stamps and since such an order has been affirmed by the Board of Revenue without interpreting the provisions of the aforesaid two sections separately, therefore, the impugned orders are bad in law, the same are liable to be quashed and a direction is required to be issued to refund the amount of Rs.15,50.137/-. Which was wrongly recovered from the petitioner, with interest at the rate of 12%. ( 5. ) PER contra it is contended by the respondents by filing the return that though the instrument of mortgage was only one document but it contains the two contingencies or two distinct subject-matters. It is contended that in first part the mortgage was extended for the fresh loan of Rs.15.24 crores. The properties of the petitioner were mortgaged for the security of the said loan. At the same time, in accordance to the terms and conditions imposed by the LIC, the petitioner has further executed the mortgage of the properties for the purposes of securing the outstanding loan. Therefore, there were two different acts of mortgage and both were chargeable under section 5 of the Act for stamp duties. Accordingly, after due consideration the order was passed by the Collector of Stamps in rightful manner as per the law and, therefore, the order has rightly been affirmed by the Board of Revenue. It is contended that as per the schedule appended with the Act, two different heads were there according to which stamp duty was to be charged and, therefore, no wrong was committed by the respondents in charging the stamp duty. Referring to Article 32 of Schedule 1A of the Act, it is contended that the duty was charged in accordance to the aforesaid provisions for the mortgage, which was executed for securing the fresh loan. Similarly, it is contended that in accordance to the provisions of Article 40 of Schedule 1A of the Act rightful duty was charged for the mortgage of the property for securing the outstanding loan. Thus, it is contended that the petition being misconceived, is liable to be dismissed. ( 6. Similarly, it is contended that in accordance to the provisions of Article 40 of Schedule 1A of the Act rightful duty was charged for the mortgage of the property for securing the outstanding loan. Thus, it is contended that the petition being misconceived, is liable to be dismissed. ( 6. ) LEARNED Senior Counsel for the petitioner taking this Court to the various provisions of the Act, specific pleadings in Para 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 of the writ petition, contended that there was no question of treating the mentioning of the fact that outstanding loan is also secured by execution of the deed of mortgage. It is contended that in terms of the conditions imposed by the LIC, necessary requirement as per the conditions of the LIC was to mention such a fact in the following manner : "Description of transmission lies forming part of the presently mortgaged premises being the twenty seventhly mortgaged premises subject to thirty two loan under these presents which will also ensure as security for all the earlier loan amounts to Rs.68,89,49,967/- as on 31-3-1988." It is contended that such a condition mentioned in the mortgage deed as per the demand of the LIC could not be said to be a mortgage of the property afresh for the outstanding loan taken by the petitioner. It is contended that the outstanding loan was already secured by executing the mortgage deed independently for which the stamp duty was already paid. Therefore, the mortgage of the petitioner would not be covered by the provisions of section 5 of the Act but it would be squarely covered by the provisions of section 6 of the Act and the petitioner was liable to pay only the highest of the stamp duty even if there were two descriptions in different schedules of the Act. It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel that such an issue was examined in one of the cases way back in the case of Tej Ram and another vs. Maqbul Shah and others, AIR 1928 Lahore 370 and the opinion expressed by the Court was that section 5 is applicable in a case where it has been shown that the deed in question embodies two separate and distinct matters. It is further held by the Court that section 5 does not apply to a document which embodies different covenants relating to the same transaction. It is further held by the Court that section 5 does not apply to a document which embodies different covenants relating to the same transaction. It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel that a test was suggested by the Court and that being the examination of the document as a whole, it has to be ascertained whether the instrument embodies distinct matters. It is heavily contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that as per the law, distinct contracts are immaterial if they relates to the same transaction. What is to be seen is whether there are distinct matters. If the matters are not different or distinct, section 5 of the Act would not be attracted at all. ( 7. ) FURTHER placing reliance in Full Bench decision in case of Ram Swarup vs. Joti and another, AIR 1933 Allahabad 321, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that nothing is to be added in a statute and since the expression distinct matter is interpreted by the Full Bench, it is contended that looking to such an interpretation, it could not be said that the document executed by the petitioner, required the stamp duty on two different heads treating as if there were distinct matters clubbed together in one instrument. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner referred the decision of Full Bench in case of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, Madras vs. M.Abdulla, AIR 1970 Madras 2, and contended that in a case where there were two distinct matters but not interrelated, the view expressed by the Full Bench was that section 5 of the Act would not be applicable and applying section 6, only the higher duty is payable on the instrument. FURTHER relying in the Special Bench Case of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, Madras vs. M/s Rani Pictures, AIR 1970 Madras 10, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Special Bench has considered in the given circumstances that in case where a contract of acceptance of a motion picture contains the condition that in the circumstances of failure of the contract, the same will become an agreement for repayment of money, the two distinct matter were treated to be interlinked and it was held that the stamp duty was chargeable only on the higher side as per the provisions of section 6 of the Act. ( 8. ( 8. ) FURTHER relying in reference case reported in AIR 1936 Allahabad 481, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the law is well settled long back that where a document contains characteristics of both a mortgage and a bond within the meaning of the Act and each characteristic is wholly apart and separable from the other, the instrument fills the dual character of a mortgage and a bond and section 6 of the Act becomes applicable and the highest of the two duties provided for by the Act is payable. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further relying in the case of Sita Ram vs. Board of Revenue, AIR 1979 Allahabad 301, contended that for the purposes of ascertaining the specific provisions under which a particular instrument is to be charged for stamp duty, the whole of the document is to be read and its true meaning is required to be found. Picking of a sentence and to construe as if document contains distinct matters is not justified. Reading para 17 and 18 of this report, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Court has very categorically held that in order to determine whether any stamp duty is chargeable upon an instrument the legal rule is that the real and true meaning of the instrument is to be ascertained. The description is given in the instrument itself by the parties is immaterial. It is further contended that such a law was approved by the Apex Court in the case of Madras Refineries vs. Board of Revenue, AIR 1977 SC 500 . Therefore, it is contended that the law was not understood rightly by the respondents and illegally the excess stamp duty was charged from the petitioner, according to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the instrument of the petitioner falls within the purview of section 6 of the Act and only the highest stamp duty was to be charged. ( 9. ) REFUTING the statements made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Advocate General contended that in accordance to law laid-down by the Apex Court in case of The Member, Board of Revenue vs. Arthur Paul Benthall, AIR 1956 SC 35 , section 5 of the Act would be applicable even when the instrument comprises matters of the same description. Reading para 3, 5 and 7 of the report, learned Advocate General contended that as per the law laid-down by the Apex Court, no room of doubt is left to hold that distinct matters are to be ascertained from the language and intention of the parties. Therefore, there were two parts in the mortgage deed executed by the petitioner Board, one which was securing the loan, which was freshly obtained by the petitioner and two, at the same time extending a mortgage again of the same properties for the outstanding loan. Thus, these were two distinct matters for which specifically section 5 of the Act would be applicable and not the provisions of section 6 of the Act. Learned Advocate General further places reliance in Full Bench case of Board of Revenue, Madras Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Madras vs. N. Narasimhan and another, AIR 1961 Madras 504. Referring to paragraph 9 of the report, learned Advocate General contended that from the language of the document it has to be ascertained whether the document is one containing distinct matters or not and contended that the expression distinct matters connotes distinct transactions and even though there is identity of parties in respect of several transactions between them, if the transactions are distinct and separate but happen to be embodied in one document that document must be treated for the purpose of levy of stamp duty as comprising several documents though in form it is a single document. It is not necessary that the transactions embodied in a single document should be different and dissimilar. Thus, it is contended that if the document sought to be registered as a mortgage deed, is considered, it would be clear that it was having two distinct matters, one pertaining to the security of the loan freshly obtained from the LIC by the petitioner and second part securing the loan by executing the additional mortgage of the very same property for the outstanding loan earlier taken by the petitioner from LIC. Thus, it is contended that the Collector of Stamp had not committed any wrong and the stamp duty on different heads was charged from the petitioner as per the provisions of section 5 on these two distinct matters on the very same document of mortgage. ( 10. Thus, it is contended that the Collector of Stamp had not committed any wrong and the stamp duty on different heads was charged from the petitioner as per the provisions of section 5 on these two distinct matters on the very same document of mortgage. ( 10. ) IN the considered opinion of this Court, after going through the various cases relied by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate General, the Collector of Stamps was right in holing that there were two distinct matters, embodied in one instrument. It is the case of the petitioner that the LIC issued a letter to the petitioner on 6-9-1988 mentioning therein the terms and conditions for granting a further loan of Rs.15.24 crores. A condition of security was mentioned in the said letter as has been reproduced in paragraph 5.3of the writ petition, which reads as under : "Security : This loan together with the outstanding amounts of loan already advanced will be secured by a first legal mortgage in English form of the assets already by a further charge over the fixed assets already mortgaged and charged and mortgaged, if necessary, of additional fixed assets of adequate value, of SEB having a depreciated book value of market value, whichever is lower, of not less than two times the aggregate outstanding amounts of such loans already advanced and this amount can now proposed to be advanced. SEB shall have to maintain this security margin (with reference to the outstanding amounts of the loan from time to time) till all the loans are repaid." The meaning of the words used in this memo as have been reproduced herein above specifically makes it out that there were two distinct matters, one the fresh loan of Rs.15.24 crores and other one, the outstanding amount of earlier loan already advanced. It was the intention of the LIC to obtain a further security for the loan which was outstanding. Thus, the mortgage was having two different characters, one a security for the loan freshly granted and second the fresh security for the outstanding loan earlier granted to the petitioner. Therefore, these being two distinct matters, only section 5 of the Act was applicable. Thus, the mortgage was having two different characters, one a security for the loan freshly granted and second the fresh security for the outstanding loan earlier granted to the petitioner. Therefore, these being two distinct matters, only section 5 of the Act was applicable. The Full Bench case in Ram Swarup (supra) relied by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner was in fact a reference where the interpretation and application of section 5 of the Act was considered. Considering at length the word used in different sections of the Act, the Full Bench was of the opinion that the words distinct matters used in section 5 in the sense mean that each matter has a distinct provision for itself in the schedule. However, there was no consideration of the provisions of section 6 of the Act, therefore, the law laid-down by the Full Bench in the aforesaid case is not much helpful. Other cases relied by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner do not make out a case that in facts and circumstances, in such a case only section 6 of the Act alone has to be applied. The law as laid- down by the Apex Court and as has been referred to hereinabove is clear. From the reading of the document, the nature of the document is to be ascertained. It is to be seen whether the document contains distinct matter or not and then only the provisions of the Act required to be applied. It is seen that there are three different provisions made under the Act. Section 4 of the Act deals separately in different situation. Likewise, section 5 of the Act deals in different field and section 6 of the Act is applicable in totally different situation. It is not the intention of the legislature to prescribe that section 6 of the Act alone would be applicable even if the matter falls within the purview of section 5 of the Act. The reading of section 6 of the Act makes it clear that it is independently made but is not overriding the effect of section 5 of the Act. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, interpretation of section 5 as has been done hereinabove with reference to the decisions of the Apex Court is more appropriate. ( 11. The reading of section 6 of the Act makes it clear that it is independently made but is not overriding the effect of section 5 of the Act. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, interpretation of section 5 as has been done hereinabove with reference to the decisions of the Apex Court is more appropriate. ( 11. ) IN view of the aforesaid, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Collector of Stamps was right in holding that for the freshly granted loan, stamp duty as per Article 32(c) of Schedule 1A of the Act would be chargeable and was further right in holding that for the mortgage of the assets of the petitioner securing the outstanding loan, the stamp duty as per Article 40(c) of Schedule 1A of the Act would be chargeable. Thus, the order was rightly passed by the Collector of Stamps and the same was rightly appreciated by the Board of Revenue. The petitioner was not to be charged only by aggregate stamp duty for payment of stamp duty for the purposes of registration of the mortgage deed of such a nature as per the provisions of section 6 of the Act. ( 12. ) THUS, no irregularity whatsoever was committed by the authorities warranting any interference in the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed but with no order as to cost. Petition dismissed.