Reference of a case by issue of a writ.

This is a petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing the Revenue Board, Madras, the Chief Controlling Authority, to refer the case to the High Court under section 57 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act (which will for the sake of convenience be referred to as the Act).

The petitioner, Saradambal Ammal, and two others, namely, Nooruddin Sahib and Natesa Gramani, entered into a tripartite arrangement on 16th February, 1956, under which the properties which I shall refer as A, B and C were exchanged inter se so that Saradambal got C properties, Nooruddin Sahib A properties and Natesa Gramani B properties. The document, which is styled as exchange, was stamped as two exchanges under Article 26 of the Indian Stamp Act. It was presented for registration to the Sub-Registrar of Saidapet. That Officer received the document, but, as he felt a doubt about the sufficiency of the stamp, he referred the matter to the Registrar of Assurances, Madras, who was the Collector, within the meaning of the Act. The Registrar of Assurances was of the opinion that the document should be construed as three conveyances, that an additional duty of Rs. 42 together with penalty of Rs. 5 would be leviable, and that in addition a deficit registration fee of Rs. 5-4-0 should also be collected. In this the Collector was presumably acting under section 40 (1) (b) of the Indian Stamp Act. The Sub-Registrar directed the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty by his order, dated 3rd April, 1956. The petitioner did not pay the additional stamp duty required of her. She moved the Registrar of Assurances to reconsider the order of the Sub-Registrar, or refer the question to the Collector of Madras. The Registrar of Assurances saw no reason to revise the order of the Sub-Registrar. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a petition before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under section 56 of the Stamp Act, praying that the document may be declared to have been properly stamped, and that it may be regarded as two conveyances. In the alternative she prayed that the case might be referred to the High Court under section 57 (1). The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, the first respondent, by its resolution, dated 3rd November, 1956, held that, the document comprised really three conveyances, and that there was no reason to interfere with the orders of the Registrar of Assurances. It also found that there was no necessity to refer the matter to the High Court, as the stamp duty involved was not much, and as the point involved was not intricate. The petitioner has, thereupon, filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the relief already mentioned.

Although the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority has stated in its order that the decision as to proper stamp duty payable in respect of the document does not raise any intricate question, it is clear, on a reading of the document, that such a question of law arises in its construction, viz., as to whether the document is nothing more than two exchanges, as a result of the tripartite arrangement, or whether it comprises three conveyances. The other reason given by the first respondent, that the amount of stamp duty involved is not much, could hardly be held to be sufficient reason for its refusal to act under section 57 (1).

The ground, on which this petition is resisted on behalf of the respondent, is that in the circumstances of the case there would be no jurisdiction in the respondent to refer the matter to the High Court under section 57 (1) of the Act. It is contended that such a reference can only be of a matter, which is pending before the Revenue Authority and which has to be disposed of after obtaining the opinion of the High Court. It is further contended that, as the matter has been decided in the present case both by the Registrar of Assurances and the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, there would be no case in respect of which a decision of the