Balasubrahmanyan, J.-This is a reference made by the Board of Revenue, Madras under section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, pursuant to a mandamus issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2484 of 1971, reported in Manjunatha v. Board of Revenue1The reference concerns an instrument bearing the date 29th April, 1970, under which the respondent, Manjunatha Rai purported to release in favour of his wife a piece of land which stood in his name.

2. The statement of the case shows that before stamping the instrument the respondent took it to the Collector of Madras and sought his opinion as to the proper stamp duty payable thereon. The Collector went into the matter and, by his order, dated 21st April, 1970, considered the document to be a release deed and determined the stamp duty payable at Rs. 22.50. On getting the Collector’s opinion the respondent stamped the instrument as a release deed with Rs. 22.50, and presented the document for registration before the sub-Registrar of Assurances, Madras-1. The Sub-Registrar however, impounded the document as insufficiently stamped in the view that it was a conveyance, and not a release as determined by the Collector. On further reference, the District Registrar agreed with the view of the Sub-Registrar, and held that the document was a conveyance of land effected by the respondent to his. wife, chargeable to stamp duty as such on the basis of the market value of the property. The District Registrar estimated the market value at Rs. 91,870-and levied a stamp duty of Rs. 5,617.50. He also imposed a nominal penalty of Rs. 5. The respondent appealed to the Board of Revenue, contending that the registering authorities had no jurisdiction to re-adjudicate the stamp duty when the Collector had already gone into the matter and had expressed his determination as. to the proper stamp duty payable. The respondent urged that, right or wrong, the Collector’s determination under section 31 was final and conclusive and no other authority functioning under the Act had power to go behind that determination and hold that the document stamped, in accordance with the Collector’s opinion was not fully stamped. The respondent further urged that, on any consideration, the document must be held to be a release deed. The Board of Revenue rejected all these contentions.

-

3. The first question before us in this reference is whether the Collector’s determination under section 31 of the Stamp Act is final and conclusive, or whether it is open to the registering authorities to independently enter into an adjudication of the stamp duty on the instrument, notwithstanding the earlier opinion of the Collector ? The question calls for a consideration of the relevant provisions of section 31 and section 32 of the Stamp Act. Section 31 (1) provides that when an instrument, whether executed or not and whether previously stamped or not, is brought to the Collector, and the person bringing it pays the requisite fee and applies to have the opinion of the Collector, as to the duty, if any with which it is chargeable, the Collector shall determine the duty, if any, with which in his judgment, the instrument is chargeable. So far as is relevant to the present discussion, it will be found that section 31 (1) deals with two kinds of instruments, those that are previously stamped, on the one hand, and those that are not previously stamped, on the other. The opinion of the Collector on stamp duty on the instrument may be solicited in respect of both kinds of instruments and in either case the Collector is bound to render his determination. Section 32 (1) says that when, on the basis of the opinion expressed by him under section 31, the Collector finds that the instrument is already fully stamped or he finds that the duty determined by him under section 31 has been paid, he shall certify, by endorsement on the instrument, that the full duty (stating the amount) has been paid on the instrument. Section 32 (3) provides, inter alia that any ins

Click Here to Read the rest of this document