The main legal point established in the judgment is that an enquiry into the market value of the property beyond the scope of S.45A is not permissible when the consideration is only love and affection towards the recipient.

1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the Court of the District Judge, Tellicherry in CMA No. 30 of 1982. The matter arises out of a reference made by the Sub-Registrar, Manjeswar under S.45(A) of the Kerala Stamp Act regarding undervaluation in Document No. 979 of 1974 executed by the revision petitioner in favour of his daughter.

2. The petitioner valued the property gifted by him in favour of his daughter at Rs. 10,600/- and paid a stamp duty of Rs. 265/-. The Sub Registrar found that the property was undervalued and it is in these circumstances, he referred the matter to the Collector as provided under S.45(A) of the Kerala Stamp Act. The Deputy Collector obtained valuation of property from the Tahsildar, Kasaragod and on the basis thereof, fixed the value of property covered by the document provisionally at Rs. 34,600/- and the deficit stamp duty payable by the petitioner at Rs. 600/-. The petitioner was given an opportunity to file objection against the provisional order. Pursuant to this, the petitioner appeared on 31-7-1977 through an advocate and filed his objections contending that the value of the property provisionally fixed was exorbitant and was without any basis and be was not given an opportunity to go through the various reports filed by the Tahsildar. It was also contended that no notice was issued about inspection of the property by the Tahsildar, that the properties covered by the document are barren lands without any yield, that they are uneven hilly tracts without any road access and that the value shown in the document was quite reasonable. It was also the petitioner's case that the property which was gifted to his daughter was outstanding in the possession of one Ramachandra Naik as cultivating tenant and that the petitioner was only entitled to receive the compensation to be fixed under S.72 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. On the basis of the above contentions the petitioner prayed to drop the proceedings taken against him under S.45A of the Stamp Act. After considering the objections, the Deputy Collector confirmed the provisional order directing the petitioner to remit the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 600/- within 30 days of the receipt of the order. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Collector the appellant preferred CMA No. 30 of 1982 before the District Court, Tellicherry and the learned District Judge after considering the points raised in the appeal confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Collector directing the petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs. 600/-. Challenging this order the above revision petition is filed.

3. In this revision petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that me order passed by the Deputy Collector as well as the order passed in appeal by the District Judge are illegal and unsustainable.

4. The contention raised by the learned counsel is mainly based on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in District Collector, Trivandrum v. Ittiavira John and another (1975 KLT 486). In that case the deed of conveyance executed by the respondent for a consideration of Rs. 3500/- was stamped for the purpose of stamp duty under Art.21 of the Kerala Stamp Act on the amount for value of the consideration shown in the document at the rate specified in the article. On reference to the Collector he held that the stamp duty bad to be levied on the market value of the property as assessed by the Tahsildar in his report viz. Rs. 48,000/-. The respondent preferred an appeal to the District Court under Clause (4) of S.45 of the Act. The District Court took the view that the Collector's action was unjustified and the order of the Collector was unsustainable having regard to the provisions of the Stamp Act. This view of the District Court was challenged in the revision petition before the Division Bench. The Division Bench held that having regard to the language of Art.21, stamp duty had to be paid on the amount of the va