K. C. AGRAWAL, J. :- The question involved in this Reference made by the Board of Revenue under Section 57 of the Stamp Act is as under :

"Whether the document under reference (Annexure-I) comes within the definition of a settlement as given in Section 2(24) clause (c) of the Stamp Act and is chargeable with duty under Article 58-A Schedule I-B thereof or is a declaration of trust chargeable under Article 64-A Schedule I-B of the said Act ?"

2. The facts leading to the above reference lie within a narrow compass. Sita Ram and Smt. Laxmi Devi were the owners of a house situate in Mohalla Sahabganj Padreuna, District Deoria. On 12-3-1962, the house was transferred to Goswami Tulsidas Vidyalaya, Padrauna. The donee failed to observe the conditions. Consequently, Sita Ram and Smt. Laxmi Devi, who were the donors, took over possession of the said house. On 31-5-1967, they executed the document under reference. The recitals in the aforesaid document show that as the donee of the previous gift had failed to observe the conditions, the gift deed was revoked. After revoking the gift of 1962, they created a trust and entrusted the management of the said building in the said body in perpetuity. The document further showed that possession over the building had been given to the trustees and it was stated that the trust was irrevocable.

3. The document was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar of Padrauna, who forwarded it to the Collector under Section 38(2) of the Stamp Act. The Collector had the market value of the property determined, which was reported to be Rs. 25,000/-. He was of the view that the document being revocation of the previous settlement, the fresh settlement was chargeable separately to stamp duty under Articles 58-B and 58-A of Schedule I-B of the Stamp Act. However, being unable to come to a definite conclusion, he referred the document to the Board of Revenue under Sec. 56(2) of the said Act.

4. After hearing counsel for the parties, the Board referred the case under Section 57 of the Stamp Act to the High Court.

5. While the executants contention was that the deed was a declaration of Trust and, as such, chargeable only to a comparatively small duty and not maximum fixed under Article 64 of Schedule I-B of the Stamp Act, the Revenues contention was that the deed was chargeable with stamp duty as an instrument of settlement under Article 58 of the said Schedule, the duty being the same as chargeable on a Bond.

6. For a proper appreciation of the points involved, it would be relevant to refer to the provisions of Section 2(24) of the Stamp Act, which defines the expression "settlement". An analysis of the aforesaid provision would show that in order to be a settlement within the meaning of Section 2(24), there must be :

(i) a non-testamentary disposition of property, movable or immovable,

(ii) an instrument in writing in respect of such disposition, and

(iii) the disposition must be an consideration of marriage, or for distribution of property amongst the settlors

family or his dependents or those for whom the settlor desires to provide, or for religious or charitable purpose.

7. In this case, we are concerned with Clause (c) of Section 2(24). Before we come to Clause (c), it may be pointed out that in order to be a settlement, it is necessary that it must be a non-testamentary disposition. The word disposition has not been defined in the Act, However, before we deal with the meaning of the expression "Disposition", it appears necessary to consider the scope of religious or charitable purposes. Inasmuch as it is clear that if there is a disposition for any religious or charitable purpose, the requirement of the definition of the expression "Settlement" may be satisfied. Religious and chariable purposes have nowhere been defined. The expression "charitable purpose", however, does not admit of a rigid definition. Mukherjea in his book on "Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Endowments" :, 1970 edition, at