1 to 4DESAI, C. J. : A report made by the Chief Inspector of Stamps in this First Appeal has been referred to a larger Bench by a Division Bench, which was of the opinion that the decision of this Court in Ramchand v. Moti Thad, 1962 All LJ 485 : (AIR 1962 All 853) requires reconsideration.

5. The report is about the stamp duty payable on a document executed by Rant Dhandevi Kunwar (now represented by the Collector, Jaunpur, the respondent) on one side and Jageshar Naik appellant on the other side. It is styled as an agreement and is stamped as such i.e., stamp duty of Re. 1-00 has been paid on it. The gist of the agreement is as follows :

Rani Dhandevi Kunwar is the sole owner of certain trees and in possession of them and has accepted the offer of Jageshar Naik to buy them for Rs. 1,00,000. Jagesh Naik undertakes to pay the price by a certain date and if he does not pay it, the Rani will have the power to stop the cutting of the trees and Jageshar Naik's entry into the land. Jageshar Naik has the right to start the cutting from the date of the execution of the agreement. In the event of default by him in paying the price, the Rani will have the power to take the timber of the trees already cut down and the remaining trees into her possession. She will give all facilities to Jageshar Naik in the act of cutting the trees. The cutting of the trees must be completed, and the land vacated, by Jageshar Naik within 3 years.

The document is signed by the two parties and attested by five witnesses.

6. The document was relied upon by both the parties to suit No. 31 of 1951, from which this appeal arises. The plaintiff-respondent, filed the original document and the defendant-appellant, Jageshar Naik filed a duplicate of it. The genuineness of both the documents was admitted and both were admitted in evidence and exhibited. The endorsement of the original was :

"Ext. 1

Ad. against deff.

A. C. J.

16/10"

The endorsement on the duplicate was :

"Ext. A-1

Ad. against plff.

A. C. J.

16/10"

7. No objection on the ground of the deed and its duplicate being insufficiently stamped was raised by either party during the trial of the suit and the Additional Civil Judge, who tried the suit, did not expressly enquire into the sufficiency of the stamp duty paid on them and did not record a specific order that it was sufficient. The deeds did not come to the notice of the Chief Inspector of Stamps and consequently he also did not bring to the notice of the learned Additional Civil Judge that they were insufficiently stamped and that neither could be received in evidence without the deficit being made good and a penalty being paid. The learned Additional Civil fudge decreed the suit against jageshar Naik and he has filed this appeal. During the pendency of the appeal the Chief Inspector of Stamps happened to examine the deeds and has submitted this report to the Court for orders. The report is, in substance :

The original deed is a bond, as defined under S. 2(5)(b) of the Stamp Act, and chargeable under Art. 15 of Sch. 1-A, with the stamp duty of Rs. 890-10-0 as against the duty of Re. 1-0-0 paid. Under Art. 25(b) of Sch. 1-A, the duplicate of the deed is chargeable with the stamp duty of Rs. 1/14 as against the duty of Re. 1 paid. There is a deficit of Rs. 889/10 in respect of the original deed and of As. 14 in respect of the copy. The penalty payable in respect of the original is Rs. 8,896/4 and that in respect of the copy, Rs. 8/12. Thus, the total amoun