Judgment

YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J

( 1 ) CIVIL No. 3477 of 1992 and other connected matters raise a common question of law under the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 2 ) THE question involved in all these matters is whether a consent decree whereunder the title to immovable properly is conveyed expressly falls under the definition of "conveyance" under Section 2 (g) or an "instrument" under Section 2 (l) of the Act or such consent decree falls outside the ambit and scope of the definition of "conveyance" or "instrument" under the Act.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the appellants before us the consent decree is not covered by the definition of "conveyance" or "instrument". The consent decrees in all these matters are almost identical.

( 4 ) THE Single Judge of the High court while construing the aforesaid definitions held that the consent decree does not fall in any of these definitions and, therefore, such a decree is not liable for payment of stamp duty.

( 5 ) THE State of Maharashtra being dissatisfied with the judgment of the Single Judge dated 10/12/1990 went up in Letters Patent Appeal. The division bench took the view that having regard to the recital in the consen