An instrument whereby a benamidar sustains and declares the interest of the real owner and puts such intention in writing and styles it as a release deed, it could only be interpreted and understood as release deed, pure and simple and cannot be a conveyance as it is popularly understood.

RAMAPRASADA RAO, J. :- The question referred to us by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, Madras 5, is as follows-

"Whether in the circumstances and facts of the case the document dated 30-6-1963 (document No. P-37/73 of District Registrar' s Office, Nagarcoil) executed by V. Daniel in favour of the Society of Trustees of Indigenous Churches in India represented by Brother Bakth Singh Chabra styled as a ' release deed' should be termed as a '

conveyance' as defined under S. 2 (10) of the Act attracting stamp duty under Art. 23 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act."

2. By way of prefatory remarks, we make it clear that if the instrument in question which we are asked to interpret is to be understood as a conveyance, then it is not properly stamped, but if it is a release deed as it is styled and understood by the parties, then it has been so properly stamped.

3. For the purpose of establishing a church and incidentally to acquire properties, both moveable and immoveable for the benefit of the said Church, moneys belonging to a religious institution called the Society of Trustees, which at that time was not registered and which was not formed as a society registered under the Societies Registration Act or under any other law for the time being in force were entrusted to certain individuals who included one Daniel who is the executant of the instrument in question. Under this instrument, Daniel is releasing his interest in the said property in favour of the Society which was later registered and which provided the source of consideration for the purchase of the property which is the subject-matter of the instrument and which at all material times was intended for the benefit of that Society. It is common ground that the Society of Trustees which was not registered at or about the time when the property which was released under the instrument was acquired was later registered as ' the Society of Trustees of Indigenous Churches in India' and this Society is represented by its principal trustee Brother Bakht Singh Chabra who also functioned as one of the promoters, if such an expression could be adopted, for the purchase of property for the specific benefit of the Society to be then formed which in turn should hold the Church for whose benefit persons like Mr. Daniel and Brother Bakht Singh opted together as an inchoate congregation to secure such properties. The recitals as such in the instrument make it clear that it was the releasee, namely, the Society of Trustees of Indigenous Churches in India which supplied the releasor with the necessary consideration from the subscriptions secured by the quondam Society for the purpose of buying the properties in issue from time to time. Two properties are the subject-matter of the instrument, one which was the subject-matter of a gift deed dated 24-7-1967 by one Jayachandra in favour of Christian Assembly, Nagarcoil, represented amongst others by Mr. Daniel and Brother Bakht Singh. The second instrument is a sale deed executed by one Prabhakaran Pillai in favour of the same body of trustees functioning as Christian Assembly. In and by the recitals, it was made clear that by the two documents as above, the properties were acquired by the Christian Assembly or by the promoters for the benefit of tre Society to be formed in order to ultimately benefit the Church which the Society had to hold. The instrument also recites that the Society which is the releasee was always understood as the accredited beneficial owner of the properties and that the Society requested Mr. Daniel who was representing the said inchoate Society to relinquish his interest and title, if any, over the properties; and the deed of release which is under consideration by us was the resultant of that mutual understanding as between the parties.

4. The Revenue doubted that by reason of the recitals therein and on a reference to the earlier documents which were the subject-matter of the treatment in the re