JUDGMENT : A certain Ahmoo, the uncle of the petitioner, passed away while he was in Malaysia. Ahmoo was holding several items of properties in the State of Kerala in his name. To administer the above properties and if required to assign the same, the legal heirs of the aforesaid Ahmoo, executed a power of attorney authorising the petitioner to act for and on their behalf. The power of attorney was presented before the 1st respondent to have his opinion as to the duty, if any, with which it is chargeable. However, by Exhibit P6, the 1st respondent refused to adjudicate on the proper stamp holding that the last clause in the power of attorney is against the provisions of the Registration Manual and Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act. 2. The objectionable clause as noted by the 1st respondent is extracted below. “And we hereby declare that the power conferred herein shall survive the death of the said attorney in which case our heirs or beneficiaries shall thereafter be vested with the powers conferred therein.” 3. I have heard Sri. Habeeb, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Bimal K. Nath, the learned Senior Government Pleader. 4. Under Section 2 (p) of the Stamp Act, 1959 "power-of-attorney" includes any instrument (not chargeable with a fee under the law relating to Court fees for the time being in force) empowering a specified person to act for and in the name of the person executing it. There is no dispute with respect to the fact that the power of attorney was produced before the 1st respondent, while he was acting in his capacity as the Officer authorised to adjudicate on the stamp. As the power of attorney was executed outside India, the same had to be presented before the competent authority to get it stamped. 5. Chapter III of the Stamp Act deals with adjudication of stamps. Section 31 is the relevant provision which reads as follows. “S. 31. Adjudication as to proper stamp. As the power of attorney was executed outside India, the same had to be presented before the competent authority to get it stamped. 5. Chapter III of the Stamp Act deals with adjudication of stamps. Section 31 is the relevant provision which reads as follows. “S. 31. Adjudication as to proper stamp. (1) When any instrument, whether executed or not and whether previously stamped or not is brought to the Collector, and the person bringing it applies to have the opinion of that officer as to the duty, if any, with which it is chargeable, and pays a fee of fifty rupees, the Collector shall determine the duty, if any, with which, in his judgment, the instrument is chargeable. (2) For this purpose the Collector may require to be furnished with an abstract of the instrument, and also with such affidavit or other evidence as he may deem necessary to prove that all the facts and circumstances affecting the chargeability of the instrument with duty, or the amount of the duty with which it is chargeable, are fully and truly set forth therein, and may refuse to proceed upon any such application, until such abstract and evidence have been furnished accordingly: Provided that-- (a) no evidence furnished in pursuance of this section shall be used against any person in any civil proceeding except in any enquiry as to the duty with which the instrument to which it relates is chargeable; and (b) every person by whom any such evidence is furnished, shall, on payment of the full duty with which the instrument to which it relates, is chargeable, be relieved from any penalty which he may have incurred under this Act by reason of the omission to state truly in such instrument any of the facts or circumstances aforesaid.” 6. When the instrument is presented before the Collector to have his opinion as to the duty, if any, with which it is chargeable, and pays the fees the Collector is to determine the duty with which, in his judgment, the instrument is chargeable. For this purpose, the competent authority may require the presenter to furnish an abstract of the instrument and such other material in the form or affidavit or other evidence to prove that all the facts and circumstances affecting the chargeability of the instrument with duty, or the amount of the duty with which it is chargeable. For this purpose, the competent authority may require the presenter to furnish an abstract of the instrument and such other material in the form or affidavit or other evidence to prove that all the facts and circumstances affecting the chargeability of the instrument with duty, or the amount of the duty with which it is chargeable. This is for the purpose of adjudging on the stamp and nothing more. 7. The provisions of the Stamp Act do not mandate that the instrument should be valid in law or meet the requirements of law as a valid document before it is chargeable to stamp duty under the Act. It is chargeable to stamp duty before or at the time of its being signed or executed. It is not necessary that it must be attested, or registered when such registration is an essential requirement for validity of the document. There is also not the slightest indication in any of the provisions of the Stamp Act to lend support to the contention that a document must be validly executed either under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act or under the Registration Act or, for that matter, under any other provision of law, before it is chargeable to stamp duty. While the Stamp Act prohibits instruments chargeable with duty from being admitted in evidence unless such instruments are duly stamped, the Registration Act prohibits receipt of unregistered documents which are required by Section 17 of that Act or any of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act to be registered. The admissibility of a document or instrument has been dealt with both in the Stamp Act as well as the Registration Act to achieve their respective purposes. It cannot, therefore, be said that the determination of the question as to what is a completed document or at what point of time a document should be stamped has to be considered with reference to any Act other than the Stamp Act. For the purpose of the Stamp Act, the crucial time for determining whether an instrument chargeable with duty is duly stamped or not, is before or at the time of execution, and that apart from its execution, no other formalities under any other law need be satisfied. (See Hazrami Gangaram vs Kamlabai And Anr [ AIR 1968 AP 213 (FB)]). 8. (See Hazrami Gangaram vs Kamlabai And Anr [ AIR 1968 AP 213 (FB)]). 8. In that view of the matter, for the purpose of adjudication of the Stamp, the 1st respondent was not justified in conducting an enquiry as to whether the relevant clauses of the Power of Attorney would violate the provisions of the Contract Act or the manual of Registration. However as and when the document is presented for registration under Section 34 of the Registration Act, the Registering Officer may enquire as to whether or not such document was executed by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed and also to satisfy himself as to the identity of the person appearing before him either in person or through a representative. He may also have to bear in mind Rule 67 and Rule 191 of the Registration Rules (Kerala) framed by the IG of Registration under Section 69 (2) of the Registration Act, 1908. As the instrument was presented for adjudication of stamp, the 1st respondent was not justified in venturing to interpret the various clauses contained therein and come to a conclusion that some of the clauses were against the provisions of the Indian Contract Act. This Writ Petition will stand allowed. Exhibit P6 will stand quashed and the 1st respondent is directed to adjudicate the instrument taking the date of presentment shown in Exhibit P6 as the date of presentment.