9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether after the registration of a document the registering authority can hold an enquiry regarding the value of the property covered by the deed and call upon the executant to pay the deficit stamp duty. 2. Whether the stamp duty payable on the deed executed by the petitioner is as for a partition deed or for a settlement deed. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Enquiry Regarding the Value of the Property and Deficit Stamp Duty: The primary issue is whether the registering authority can hold an enquiry regarding the value of the property covered by the deed and call upon the executant to pay the deficit stamp duty after the registration of a document. The judgment hinges on the interpretation of Section 33(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. According to this section, the power to impound an instrument can only be exercised by a person having the authority to receive evidence or in charge of a public office, except a police officer, and only when the instrument is produced before them in the performance of their functions. The judgment clarifies that the power to impound under Section 33(1) can only be exercised so long as the function is not performed or completed, and not afterwards. The Sub-Registrar, who registers documents under the Registration Act, is considered a person in charge of a public office. Section 35 of the Stamp Act mandates that no instrument chargeable with duty shall be registered unless it is duly stamped. Consequently, the registering officer must examine whether an instrument presented for registration is duly stamped before admitting it to registration. If the document is not duly stamped, the officer must impound it under Section 33 of the Act. However, once the document is registered, the officer becomes functus officio, meaning they have completed their function and no longer have the power to impound the instrument. The Supreme Court's decision in Govt. of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan, AIR 1961 SC 787, supports this interpretation. The Supreme Court held that the Collector had no power to impound an instrument sent to him for adjudication under Section 31 of the Stamp Act once the function of giving an opinion on the duty chargeable was performed. The doctrine of functus officio was applied, indicating that the officer had no power to recall and impound a document after completing their function. In the present case, the Sub-Registrar registered the document on 31st October 1956, and thus became functus officio on that date, losing the power to impound the document. Paragraphs 231 and 232 of the Registration Manual do not provide any authority to the registering officer to report insufficiency of stamp after the document has been admitted to registration. Therefore, the answer to the first question is that after the registration of the 'Takseemnama' on 31st October 1956, the registering authority had no power to hold an enquiry regarding the value of the property covered by the deed and call upon the executant to pay the deficit stamp duty. 2. Stamp Duty Payable on the Deed: Given the answer to the first question, it was deemed unnecessary to address the second question regarding whether the stamp duty payable on the deed executed by the petitioner is as for a partition deed or for a settlement deed. Separate Judgment by Golvalker, J.: Golvalker, J. expressed a differing opinion, disagreeing with the majority view. He argued that there was no question of the authority being functus officio in the case before the Supreme Court. He believed that the registering authority had the power to report to the Collector that the instrument was not duly stamped and send it to the Collector for further proceedings. He emphasized that the examination of the instrument for stamp duty was not a part of the statutory function under the Registration Act and that the registering authority did not become functus officio after registering the instrument. Consequently, he would have held that the registering authority had the power to impound the instrument and send it to the Collector for further action. Conclusion: In view of the majority opinion, the court concluded that after the registration of the 'Takseemnama' on 31st October 1956, the registering authority had no power to hold an enquiry regarding the value of the property covered by the deed and call upon the executant to pay the deficit stamp duty. This conclusion rendered it unnecessary to address the second question. The parties were left to bear their own costs of this reference.
|
