Deed of dissolution to be construed as instrument of partition.

This is a reference by the Board of Revenue, Madras, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, under section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act raising the question of the chargeability of the proper stamp duty in respect of a document, dated 5th September, 1954, which came under the purview of the Revenue Authorities under the following circumstances.

Nidamurthi Narasimham and Surayya are divided brothers who were parties to a transaction embodied in writing and dated 5th September, 1954. Narasimham one of the executants of the said document presented it to the Collector of Madras for assessment and levy of the stamp duty payable for that document. The Collector impounded the document under section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act and called upon Narasimham to file an affidavit explaining the various items of transactions referred to in the document which, on the face of the document, looked obscure and cryptic. Narasimham filed an affidavit, dated 25th February, 1955, the contents of which were not really helpful in determining the chargeable stamp duty. The Collector classified the document as a deed of partition under Article 38 of Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act and also as a conveyance under Article 19, Schedule 1-A of the Act and levied a stamp duty of Rs. 3,939 and a penalty of Rs. 70. The Board of Revenue, the Referring Authority, agreed with this view of the Collector. Thereupon the above reference to this Court has been made under section 57 of the Stamp Act.

The reference came on for hearing in the first instance before three learned Judges of this Court, Rajagopalan, Officiating Chief Justice, Ramaswami and Rajagopala Ayyangar, JJ. The learned Judges were of opinion that it was necessary to have further details regarding the particulars and items of transactions disclosed in the document before the reference can be answered and accordingly directed/the Board of Revenue to submit a further and fuller statement of the case. The executants of the document were given opportunity to place before the Board of Revenue further evidence in regard to the nature of the items set out in the document. The further statement by the Board was directed to be submitted within three months from 18th November, 1957, the date of the order of this Court.

The Board has now filed a supplementary statement in the course of which it has observed as follows:-

“The parties to the document Nidamurthy Narasimham and his brother N. Surayya have not produced the relevant documents and accounts even though repeatedly called upon to do so. Mr. Narasimham, one of the executants, has stated that ‘the accounts relating to the said documents were filed by me into the City Civil Court, Madras, in O.S. No. 1780 of 1956 on or about 10th August, 1956. Some of them were also exhibited in the trial of the suit. They will not be returned to me. Hence the Board may be requested to send for them from the City Civil Court ‘. Since the relevant accounts and documents were not produced before the Board and no further materials were available the Board regrets its inability to examine further the nature of each of the items set out in the memorandum.”

The position now is just what it was on 18th November, 1957, when this Court wanted the Board of Revenue to submit a fuller statement of the case. The conduct of the executant of the document in abstaining from placing materials before the revenue authority to explain the true nature of the document, dated 5th September, 1954, is not commendable and it excites the suspicion of the Court that the parties are purposely evasive in the matter to avoid and escape the proper stamp duty payable in respect of the document. But this Court cannot refuse to answer the reference on that ground as section 59 of the Indian Stamp Act provides that on a reference, ‘the High Court shall decide the question raised thereby’. We have therefore heard the reference on the materials available on the record and we have reached the conclusion that