A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

1. In a suit for setting aside a sale deed showing consideration of Rs. 3,50,000/- the defendants contended that the total consideration paid by them is Rs. 67,00,000/-. The suit filed by the plaintiffs is numbered as O.S. No. 115/2010 on the file of the Additional Sub Judge, Kollam. The plaintiffs sued them based on the certified copy of the sale deed No. 1615/2008 of Eravipuram SRO. The plaintiffs filed an application as I.A. No. 2041/2015 in O.S. No. 115/2010 to impound the document. The said application has been allowed as per Ext.P10 order. The defendants challenge the above order in this original petition.

2. It is appropriate in this context to refer to Section 33 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 which deals with the Examination and impounding of instruments. Section 33 of the Stamp Act 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.

(b) who shall be deemed to be persons in charge of public offices."

3. The question that arises for consideration is whether adjudication is warranted as to the consideration paid for the purpose of stamp duty and registration. One of the issues in the suit itself is as to the consideration paid by the purchasers/defendants. The defendants have filed written statement opposing the averments in the plaint. The plaintiffs denied having received such consideration. These are matters which are the subject matter of the suit itself. The contention in the written statement would remain only as a contention unless that contention is accepted through an adjudicatory process.

4. However, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, a question arises whether the admission in the written statement by the purchasers/defendants as to the consideration paid by them can be relied upon for the purpose of adjudication of Stamp duty. To examine the admission as referred above, one has to look into the nature of the admission in the matter. In this case, admittedly, the stamp duty is paid in accordance with the consideration as shown in the instrument. In that sense, the instrument bears the proper stamp duty in accordance with the consideration.

5. The issue now germane for consideration is the undervaluation of the stamp duty. Undervaluation of consideration is different from the examination of proper stamp duty as contemplated under Sections 31, 33 and 34 of the Stamp Act. The competent authority for determining consideration in accordance with Section 45B of the Stamp Act is the Collector or any other officer as prescribed by the Government. In the State, the District Registrar discharges these functions. This is not a case involved under Section 45B. T