CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J.

( 1 ) THIS reference made under Sec. 54 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under the. Act, gives rise to the following question which falls to determination: "whether the document in question namely, the instrument of general Power of Attorney executed by the petitioner, constituting canara Bank, Tumkur, as her attorney in respect of matters specified, in the document is1 one falling under Entry 41 (c) or (e) ?"

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a hotel owner at Tumkur and she applied for a loan of Rs. 1,50,000|- to the Canara Bank, Gurappa Choultry Road, Tumkur branch against the security of the schedule property set out in the document in question. The said Bank required the petitioner to execute an irrevocable power of attorney in addition to any other security which might have been taken from the petitioner. When the document was presented for registration, it was impounded for not being duly starnped under Sec. 33 of the Act. The Sub-Registrar, Tumkur, before whom it was presented for registration purporting to act under S. 39 of the Act, treating the document as a deed of mortgage with possession, as per his Order No. 1/ 77-78 dated 3-9-1977, levied stomp duty of Rs. 8,305 j- and a penalty of Rs. 6,805/- directing the petitioner to pay the same, within 15 days. Aggfneved by the order of the Sub-Registrar (also invested with the power of Deputy Com- missioner under the Act), the petitioner preferred an appeal before the chief Controlling Revenue Authority.

( 3 ) THE petitioner was given an opportunity by the Chief Controlling revenue Authority to put forward her case. After hearing the learner counsel for the petitioner, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority passed an order holding that the power of attorney in question was an irrevocable power of attorney executed for consideration and therefore liable to stamp duty under Entry 41 (e) of the Schedule to the Act. On the request of the crc. 3/79. petitioner, the Chief Controlling Kevenue Authority has made this reference under S. 54 of the Act to this Court with a statement of the case.

( 4 ) SHRI P. R. Srinivasan learned counsel for the petitioner before us has strongly urged that the loan was advanced against other security offer ed by the petitioner and it is only at the instance of the Bank that the power of attorney was executed and; there is nothing in the power oj attorney to indicate that it was irrevocable and that it was executed, for consideration. It is difficult to accede to thisi contention. In the power of attorney in question, it is clearly staged as follows:"and WHEREAS the Principal has sought a loan of Rs. 1,50,000 (Rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand only) from the Attorney at their above said Gurappa Choultry Road, Tumkur branch office against the security of the Scheduled property to construct therein, a new additional building intended for hotel, lodging shops office etc. , and whereas the attorney has required the Principal to execute c irrevocable registered Power of Attorney in favour of the Attorney authorising". (Underlining is ours ). This recital makes it abundantly clear that it was in consideration of the bank advancing the loan that che petitioner was called upon to execute the power of attorney. A perusal of clause (c) of the power of attorney which is as follows: (c) To sell, alienate by way of mortgage or otherwise to deal with the property described in the schedule at a price to be fixed and deemed fit and reasonable by the attorney at its sole discretion and appropriate the sa,le proceeds and or the mortgage consideration first towards interest cost and other charges incurred, therein and the balance towards reduction of the liability due to the attorney and a loan of Rs. 1,50,000 (Rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand only ). also makes it clear that the power of attorney was executed for consideration of the grant of loan.

( 5 ) THE other contention of Shri S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document