The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Sub Registrar cannot impound a document presented for registration without following the procedure under Rule 207 of the Registration Rules (Kerala) and determining the fee payable.

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The dialectical interplay of two provisions, namely, Section 33 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 ('the Act' for short) and Rule 207 of the Registration Rules (Kerala) ('the Rules' for short), when an insufficiently stamped document is presented for Registration before the competent Registrar, present for examination and assessment in this writ petition.

2. The issue is short but of some importance. When an insufficiently stamped document is presented for registration before the Registering Authority, can he immediately order impounding it on the ground that it is insufficiently stamped invoking Section 33 of the Act or is he obliged to follow due procedure under Rule 207 of the Rules to first determine the value of the fee and notify the presenter of the document before issuing any further orders leading to impounding - this is what is called upon to be considered in this writ petition.

3. The constitutive facts involved in this case will place this question in perspective and they are as under.

4. The petitioner executed a settlement deed with respect to a property in favour of his daughter and granddaughter out of his affection for them. He was advised that under the provisions of Article 51A of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 ('the Act' for brevity) he would be eligible to a lesser stamp duty because the assignment is in favour of very close relatives. He had, therefore, valued the property correctly and had paid the stamp duty under the provisions of Article 51 of the Act.

5. However, when it was presented for registration before the Sub Registrar, he raised an objection that since the granddaughter is not a beneficiary shown under Article 51A, the petitioner will be obliged to remit the full stamp duty applicable for such a settlement deed. The petitioner relies on the provisions of Article 51A and maintains that the stand of the Sub Registrar was not proper.

6. While so, the Sub Registrar impounded the document and sent it to the District Registrar for valuation, which led to Exhibit P2 order to be issued against the petitioner. As per this order, the District Registrar, invoking powers presumably under Article 33 of the Act, ordered that the document be impounded unless the petitioner pays the stamp duty at the ad valorem rate as indicated in the said order. The petitioner has impugned Exhibit P2 as being issued without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the various Statutes that cover the filed.

7. I have heard Sri. Sreelal Warrier, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner points to the specific contents of Exhibit P3 and says that, in fact, no due process for impounding the document was even initiated by the authorities because, as is discernible therefrom, all that the Sub Registrar has asked the District Registrar is in the nature of a clarification as to the correct fees to be paid. The learned Government Pleader refutes this and says that what was done was not merely seeking a clarification but to impound the document.

9. Therefore, the question before me now is whether the authorities have acted correctly in impounding the document and then refusing to return the document on the ground that it stand impounded.

10. Section 33 of the Act provides for examination and impounding of instruments. It says as under:

"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."

11. A reading of Section 33 then opens up the issue as to whether a Sub Registrar, before whom a document is presented for registration, can invoke the powers thereunder to impoun