Ext.P3 order of the second respondent and Ext.P11 order by which the fifth respondent confirmed Ext.P3 order in appeal, are under challenge in the writ petition.

2. A company called M/s. Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd owned 6.63 hectors of rubber plantation. On 25.08.1988, a firm was constituted in the name and style 'Isdale Plantations', as per Ext.P6 partnership. M/s. Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd was one of the partners of the newly constituted firm. As per the terms of the partnership, the company brought the said item of property into the stock of the firm. Consequent thereto, the mutation of the property was also changed to the name of the firm. Ext.P6 partnership was reconstituted as per Ext.P8 deed by which M/s. Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd retired from the firm and the rest of the partners continued as partners. On 20.11.2012, the firm 'Isdale Plantations' sold the said property to the petitioner as per Ext.P1 sale deed for a total consideration of Rs 13,56,000/-. However, when Ext.P1 document was presented for registration, the Sub Registrar entertained a doubt as to the correctness of the stamp duty paid on the document and consequently, impounded the document, in exercise of his powers under section 33 of the Kerala Stamp Act ('the Act', for short). Thereupon, the document was sent to the District Registrar for determination of the stamp duty payable on the instrument under section 39 of the Act and the District Registrar as per Ext.P3 order held that the property was brought into the stock of the firm fixing a value of Rs.80,000/- without executing any instrument and without remitting the stamp duty payable and therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay the stamp duty which should have been paid at the time of bringing the property into the stock of the firm also. The petitioner though challenged Ext.P3 order in appeal before the fifth respondent, as per Ext.P11 order, the fifth respondent confirmed Ext.P3 order reiterating the stand taken in Ext .P3 order.

3. Section 33 of the Act dealing with impounding of documents reads as follows:

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 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 the State when such instrument was executed or first executed :

Provided that --

(a) nothing herein contained shall be deemed to require any Magistrate or Judge of a Criminal Court to examine or impound, if he does not think fit so to do, any instrument coming before him in the course of any proceeding other than a proceeding under Chapter XII or Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898; (b) in the case of a Judge of the High Court, the duty of examining and impounding any instrument under this section may be delegated to such officer as the Court appoints in this behalf.

(3) For the purpose of this section, in cases of doubt, the Government may determine--

(a) what offices shall be deemed to be public offices; and

(b) who shall be deemed to be persons in charge of public offices." Section 39 of the Act dealing with the power of the Collector to determine and require payment of stamp duty reads as follows;

"39:- Collector's power to stamp instruments impounded:- (1) When the Collector impounds any instrument under Section 33, or receives any instrument sent to him under sub-section (2) of Section 37, not being an instrument chargeable with a duty of [twenty paise] or less, he shall adopt the followi