D. S. R. VARMA, J.

( 1 ) A learned single Judge of this Court having found two decisions rendered by this Court in Gulam Hussain vs. Addl. Rent controller, Hyderabad and N. Jagannadham vs. V. Mangamma conflicting with each other referred this Revision Petition under article 227 of the Constitution to the division Bench framing the question as below:"if an application is made before a court for sending a document to the revenue Divisional Officer for collection of stamp duty, is the Court bound to do so or is the Court free to impound the document itself and admit the document on collection of stamp duty together with penalty. "

( 2 ) HAVING regard to the above question of law before us, it is necessary to narrate the facts in brief, which are as follows: The petitioners herein are the alleged lessees and the respondents are the alleged lessors. The respondents herein filed A. T. C. No. 42 of 1994 before the Special Officer under A. P. Tenancy Act against the petitioners seeking eviction from the suit land. During the enquiry, the petitioners sought to mark a lease deed dated 31-12-1984 said to have been executed by the respondents. The same was objected to by the respondents since the same was found to be insufficiently stamped and not registered. The trial Court assessed the stamp duty and penalty payable and directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 9,905/ -. In the meanwhile, the petitioners filed I. A. No. 131 of 1996 praying the Court to send the alleged document (lease deed dated 31-12-1984)to the Revenue Divisional officer, Ongole for impounding and levying stamp duty taking a plea that the said document was a piece of crucial documentary evidence. The trial Court having held that it has power to impound the disputed document, imposed duty and penalty and dismissed the I. A. without sending the document to the Revenue divisional Officer. The said order was confirmed by the District Judge in a. T. A-No. 22 of 1996. Hence, the revision.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners while relying on the Judgment of this Court in N. Jagannadham vs. V. Mangamma (supra), contends that when an application under Section 38 of the indian Stamp Act is made seeking to send the document to the Revenue Divisional officer for impounding, the Court has no option but to forward the same for impounding.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents while relying on Gulam Hussain vs. Addl. Rent Controller, hyderabad (supra), submits that when the court found that the document is chargeable to duty, it has the jurisdiction to impound the document and levy the duty and penalty on its own without sending it to the Revenue Divisional Officer and then allow it to be admitted in evidence.

( 5 ) BEFORE going into the relative contentions, it is necessary to refer the relevant provisions under the Indian Stamp act, 1899 (for brevity the Act ). 33. Examination and Impounding of instruments: (1) Every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, and every person- in-charge of a public office, except an officer of a police, before whom any instrument, chargeable, in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, shall, if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped, impound the same. (2) For that purpose every such person shall examine every instrument so chargeable and so produced or coming before him, in order to ascertain whether it is stamped with a stamp of the value and description required by the law in force in India when such instrument was executed or first executed. PROVIDED that: (a) nothing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35. Instruments not duly stamped in admissible in evidence, etc: No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any perso

Click Here to Read the rest of this document