The interpretation of a document as a settlement deed under the Indian Stamp Act does not necessarily involve a substantial question of law requiring reference to the High Court under Section 57.

V. Kanagaraj, J.

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 26.6.2001, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.16767 of 1994, dismissing the petition filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent to refer to the High Court to decide the matter under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act for adjudication of the question of law pertaining to the interpretation of the document dated 7.10.1991 presented by the respondents before the Joint-Registrar-II, Karur whether the said document is a declaration of Trust amounting to settlement or it is only a document making a declaration of pre-existing Trust and not transferring the ownership of any specific property or creating a Trust executing a deed in favour of the trustees.

2. Creating a Trust viz., Thiru G.V.Srinivasan Chettiar Trust by a registered Will dated 5.12.1990 executed by the said G.V.Srinivasan Chettiar, who died on 5.1.1991, the petitioners, who are the trustees, have applied for the registration of the by-laws to the second respondent who, by an order dated 11.12.1992, informed the petitioners that the said document was invalid since the document was a Settlement Deed ( Vw;ghL) and further directed the petitioners/appellants herein to appear before him for explaining the same. They preferred an appeal to the first respondent under Section 56(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, which had also been rejected by an Order dated 29.3.1993 and therefore, the petitioners had applied to the first respondent under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act for a direction to refer the matter to the High Court since the interpretation of the document would amount to a question of law and this request was also rejected by the first respondent as per his Order dated 27.1.1994 against which, the writ petition has been filed.

3. Before the learned single Judge, it would be contended by the petitioner therein that under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act a reference has to be made to the High Court since the interpretation of the first respondent over the documents produced involves a question of law and it is mandatory on the part of the respondents to refer the matter to the High Court and that the reason adduced for rejecting the said request is not acceptable since the document produced for registration was only a By-law and not a Trust and there was no settlement of any property belonging to G.V.Srinivasan Chettiar in favour of the said Trust under the document and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent argued that late G.V. Srinivasan Chettiar has only expressed his interest to create a Trust in his name by the said Will and had not created the Trust at all by the recitals of the document.

4. Learned Single Judge, observing that, while interpreting the deed, the Court is expected to have a harmonious construction of a document without giving any interpretation of such contents and that in a case of Will, a plain reading of the contents of the Will would show that there was only an intention on the part of G.V. Srinivasan Chettiar to create a Trust and the properties bequeathed under the Will to be transferred in favour of the Trust, which would be created after his demise thereby meaning that he had not transferred the properties in favour of the Trust on the date when he executed the Will; that the petitioners in fact have transferred the immovable properties belonging to the said G.V. Srinivasan Chettiar in favour of the Trust and therefore, the respondents have directed the petitioners to pay the difference in stamp duty to the Government construing the document as a settlement deed; that the interpretation given to the document, even in view of the learned single Judge, is based on the contents of the Will and relying on the same, the first respondent refused to refer the matter to the High Court under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act;