( 1 ) THIS case was referred to the High Court by the Chief controlling Revenue Authority (Board of Revenue, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad), for a determination of the question, whether the document in question is a power of attorney, or a mortgage with possession.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the reference may shortly be stated. P. A. J. Seetharamaraju and two others (hereinafter called "the applicants") presented a document entitled power of Attorney dated 20-8-1962, to the Sub Registrar, Cheepurupalli, for registration. The Sub Registrar referred the document to the District Registrar, Srikakulam, who, by his order dated 4-1-1963, acting under Section 38 (2) of the Indian Stamp Act (Act 2 of 1899) hereinafter referred to as the act), took the view that the document is a mortgage with possession for Rupees 1,50,000 requiring a stamp duty of Rs. 12,000 under Article 35 (a) of the Act. But, as the document bore a stamp only of Rs. 11-50, the District Registrar Directed the sub-Registrar to collect the balance of stamp duty of Rs. 11,988-50, together with the penalty of Rs. 5.

( 3 ) AGAINST that order, a revision was preferred by the applicant to the Board of Revenue, under