Panchapakesa Aiyar, J. - These three are connected matters. W.P. No. 921 of 1955 is against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai confirmed by the Collector of Ramnad at Madurai, with certain modifications, levying stamp duty and penalty on two bonds from Subramanian Chettiar, the Petitioner and the executant of those two bonds.

The facts were briefly these: The two documents were produced before the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga by one Palaniappa Chettiar in O.S. No. 81 of 1952 on his file, filed by the said Palaniappa Chettiar, against the Petitioner, Subramaniam Chettiar, for recovering moneys due under a document renewing the debt under the two bonds, which were labelled “deposit letters”. The Court-fee Examiner put in a check-slip contending that the alleged deposit letters were really bonds and had not been duly stamped and suggesting that they should be impounded and sent to the Collector. When the matter was taken up by the Court, the plaintiff Palaniappa Chettiar agreed to have the document impounded and sent to the Collector for levying the appropriate stamp duty and penalty. The learned Subordinate Judge impounded those documents under section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act and sent them to the Collector (the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai). The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, received the documents. The amount covered by the first document, which was dated 9th July, 1938, had been taken over to the second document, dated 19th September, 1946, including interest. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, Mr. Subramaniam, finally passed an order under section 40 of the Stamp Act levying a duty of Rs. 135 and penalty of Rs. 675 on the first document, and a duty of Rs. 60 and a penalty of Rs. 300 on the second document, and called upon the petitioner Subramaniam Chettiar (instead of the plaintiff Palaniappa Chettiar, as had been intended by his predecessor Mr. Ramakrishnan) to pay the amount of Rs. 1170. The Petitioner moved him to reconsider the order stating that the documents in question were only deposit letters, and not bonds. That petition was rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mr. Subramaniam, on 12th March, 1955, and the Petitioner was asked to pay the amount within 10 days of the receipt of his order, failing which he was told that the amount would be realised from him as arrears of land revenue and steps would be taken to prosecute him under the provisions of the Stamp Act, evidently under section 62, as the executant of the two documents chargeable with duty but not duly stamped. The Petitioner then appealed to the Collector of Ramnad. The Collector reduced the penalty from five times the duty to three times the duty in both the cases, as he considered it to be somewhat excessive, but otherwise dismissed the appeal. As the Petitioner did not pay the amount, a warrant was issued for the attachment of the petitioner’s properties for the recovery of the stamp duty and penalty. Thereupon this writ was filed on the ground that even if there is an alternative remedy open to the Petitioner, like taking the matter in appeal or revision to the Board of Revenue that remedy was not equally convenient or beneficial or effective, since the Petitioner’s properties were in imminent danger of being sold for recovering the stamp duty and penalty as arrears of land revenue.

The only question raised by Mr. A. Sundaram Ayyar, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, was that the Collector went wrong in requiring the Petitioner, the executant, to pay the stamp duty and penalty, instead of asking the plaintiff in the suit, who had produced the documents in Court in support of his claim and wanted them to be admitted in evidence to pay them. He said that there was a conflict of ruling regarding this and wanted a clear ruling from us as to the person against whom the Collector can legally proceed for recovering the stamp duty and penalty by proceeding against his property under section 48 of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document