This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the docket sheet order passed in memorandum dated 06.12.2007 in O.S.No.388 of 2002, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam.

2. The Petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.388 of 2002. The suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property without due process of law.

3. The case of the Plaintiff is that the suit property belongs to Sri Aruna Jedeswaresamy Thirukkoil, Thirupanandal. One Chadaiyappan was the lessee of the suit property under the Temple and after his demise, his legal heirs namely mother and wife of the said Chadaiyappan are the lessees of the suit property. Further case of the plaintiff is that on 30.09.2000, the first defendant sub-let her share in the suit property for a sum of Rs.35,000/- under the Lease Deed, dated 30.09.2000. The Plaintiff instituted the suit relying upon the sub-lease deed, dated 30.09.2000.

4. The Principal District Munsif, Kumbakonam issued a memorandum informing the plaintiff to pay the stamp duty penalty of Rs.38,390/- under Article 35(A) of the Stamps Act. The Petitioner submitted his objection stating that the document dated 30.09.2000 is only an Agricultural Lease Deed and not a Mortgage Deed, which does not require stamp duty. However, the Principal District Munsif, Kumbakonam by order dated 6.12.2007 passed the impugned order directing the plaintiff/petitioner to pay a stamp duty penalty of Rs.38,390/-. Challenging the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

5. Heard Mr.M.R.S.Prabu, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.R.Devarajan, learned counsel for the fourth respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that as per Section 4(b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, lease agreement of agricultural land, does not require registration and payment of stamp duty. It is further submitted that the document in question is only a Sub-Lease Agreement of the agricultural land and not a mortgage deed.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent made submissions in support of the order of the learned Principal District Munsif, Kumbakonam.

8. It is seen from the document dated 30.9.2000, the second defendant has executed the document categorically stating that on 9.8.2000 Devaki borrowed a sum of Rs.35,000/- from the Plaintiff and she undertook to repay the amount within a period of three years and till then the Plaintiff can enjoy the suit property. The said Devaki has also given an undertaking to repay the loan amount and if the amount could not be paid within the period of three years, the same terms and conditions can be continued till such payment is made by the second defendant.

9. In my considered opinion, document dated 30.09.2000 is only a mortgage deed and therefore the contention of the Petitioner cannot be accepted.

10. The learned counsel further submitted that the Petitioner disputes his liability to pay Stamp duty. So as per Sections 38(2) and 40 of the Stamp Act, the Court can impound the document, if it is not duly stamped and has to forward the same to the Collector for adjudication, the determination of stamp duty by the Court is not correct. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgements reported in 1998-I-MLJ 407 (V.Ponnusamy vs. N.Namis Dhas and others) and 2001(2) CTC 47 (Chilakuri Gangulappa vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanpalle and another.

11. In 1998-I-MLJ 407, this Court has held as follows:

"13. There is no dispute that the Court below which is competent to receive document could impound the mortgage deed in question after examination of the deed. Section 33 of the Stamp Act enables the Court below, to examine and impound the mortgage deed which was produced by the Petitioner along with the plaint and it has rightly impounded the document as the document has not been duly stamped.