The definition of 'lease' in the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 prevails over definitions in other statutes, and transactions falling within its provisions are subject to the Act's specific taxation.

1. In a suit for recovery of a building with consequential reliefs, the plaintiff, in proof of his case, tendered in evidence a document executed by the defendant in his favour. On attention of the court being drawn to the Insufficiency of the stamp affixed to the document, the trial court held that the instrument has to be treated as a lease and it has to be stamped in accordance with the provisions contained in item 33 (a) (viii) of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959. (referred to hereunder as the Act). The plaintiff-revision petitioner challenges the correctness of that order.

2. The instrument in question was drawn up in a stamp paper of the value of 75 paise and it was signed only by the executant. The document Is nomenclatured as hmSINo<

"'lease' means a lease of Immovable property, and includes also (i) Marayapattom,-(ii) Kanapaitom;

(iii) An agreement or other undertaking in writing not being a counterpart of a lease, to cultivate, occupy, or pay or deliver rent for immovable property;

The petitioner did not seriously dispute the proposition that the instrument in dispute falls within S.2 (1) (iii). In other words, the instrument satisfies the definition of 'lease' as defined In the Act. When once the transaction is defined in the Act itself it is not permissible to go outside the provisions of the Act and search for a definition of the very same term in some other statute. In as much as the expression 'lease' has been defined in the Act the court below was right in holding that the definition of "lease" in the Transfer of Property Act or for that matter in any other statute cannot be of any assistance. Being a taxing statute if a particular transaction is hit by the provisions of the statute the person concerned cannot escape liability by pressing Into service provisions of other statutes. In as much as the disputed instrument squarely falls within the definition of lease as contained in S.2 (1) (iii) of the Act the instrument has to be taxed under item 33 (a) (viii) of the Schedule. The order passed by the court below is right and this revision is dismissed. No costs.

Dismissed.