ORDER :- The petitioner is seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the Board of Revenue to state a case under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act on the questions of law which, according to the petitioner, do arise in the Board's order dated 13-5-1971. The petitioner's case is that, in 1947 he purchased a property of an extent of 27 grounds with buildings thereon in Madras, for a substantial consideration, a part of which was provided for by his wife, as is demonstrable by the various events that took place at or about the time of the purchase of the property for securing the sale price. It is said that the petitioner's wife mortgaged her own property and contributed towards the price of the property. In or about 1970 the petitioner decided to relinquish and release his interests over a portion of the said property, viz., an extent of ten grounds which, eversince the purchase, was in the possession of the petitioner's wife and who, with her own funds, did put up a superstructure thereon as well. In order to confirm and confer a better title to the petitioner's wife, an instrument of release was prepared by the petitioner in and by which he expressly released and relinquished his interests over the part of the property so as to make the petitioner's wife's title to the property more perfect. This release deed which was not stamped was forwarded to the Collector of Madras for obtaining an opinion from him under Section 31 of the Indian Stamp Act, as to what was the stamp fee which ought to be paid on the instrument. The Collector, by his order dated 21-4-1970, adjudicated on the subject-matter and held that the deed of release forwarded by the petitioner was liable to stamp duty under Article 55 (b) of the Indian Stamp Act as a release deed, pure and simple. After having secured such an adjudication, the petitioner presented the said document for registration before the Sub-Registrar of Assurances, who felt a doubt about the stamp duty paid on the instrument and therefore, impounded the same under Section 33 of the Act. After having impounded the said document under the Stamp Act, the Sub-Registrar referred the matter to the District Registrar who was of opinion that the document had to bear the stamp payable on a sale deed and that the stamp fee paid as if it was a release deed was not proper. The petitioner took up the matter in appeal before the Board of Revenue, who was the Chief Controlling Revenue authority. He took up two contentions before the Board. The first was that neither the Sub-Registrar of Assurances initially nor the District Registrar of Assurances, had the requisite authority to impound a document which was adjudicated upon by the Collector of Madras, as the statutory authority for giving an opinion on such matters and consequentially adjudicate upon them. The second contention was that the document, having regard to the circumstances, of the case, was a release deed and not a sale deed and therefore, the stamp fee paid was sufficient and the opinion expressed by the Collector under Section 31 read with Section 32 of the Act is final and conclusive. The Board, however, agreed with the opinion of the District Registrar and affirmed that the instrument was not duly stamped and was of the view that it should bear the duty as if it was a sale deed. On the other question, the Board expressed the view that as no certificate was issued by the Collector as contemplated under Section 32 of the Act and as he merely adjudicated upon the instrument and reckoned the duty, the order, in such circumstances, is not final in the eye of law. Having thus been unsuccessful before the Board, the petitioner requested the Board of Revenue to state a case under Section 57 of the Stamp Act to the High Court on the following questions :

1. As to whether the District Registrar, Madras, was competent to reopen an adjudication made by the Collector of Madras of the instrument dated 29-4-1970 executed by the petitioner, and

2. Whether, on th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document