AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anantanarayanan, C.J.—These references u/s 57 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899, are closely inter-related in the substantial question
involved, namely, what was precisely decided in Crompton Engineering Co., (Madras) Ltd. Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Madras, and
how far should the dicta in that judgment be pressed with regard to an unregistered instrument, which, but for registration, is effective to transfer
rights as a conveyance or a deed of mortgage? Of the three references, R C. 13 of 1965 is the most significant, on the facts, and the arguments
were really elaborated in this case. Therefore, we consider it most appropriate to deal with this reference immediately, and in detail. The question
for our decision is:
Whether the instrument in question is not liable to be stamped under Article 23 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act, even though it is not registered,
and whether instruments in general are to be stamped on execution notwithstanding that other conditions which validate the transfer of rights which
the instruments purport to make are not present?
Before dealing with the main issue, in this select reference (R.C. No. 13 of 1965), it is essential to set forth the several definitions and provisions of
the Indian Stamp Act II of 1899, as amended upto date. No apology is, hence, needed for these verbatim citations, as the definitions and their
juxtaposition have to be borne in mind, when considering the question really involved.
Section 2(6)--Definition of ''chargeable'': ''Chargeable'' means, as applied to an instrument executed or first executed after the commencement of
this Act, chargeable under this Act, and, as applied to any other instrument, chargeable under the law in force in India, when such instrument was
executed or, where several persons executed the instrument at different times, first executed.
Section 2(10)--Definition of ''conveyance'': ''Conveyance'' includes a conveyance on sale and every instrument by which property, whether
moveable or immovable, is transferred inter vivos and which is not otherwise specifically provided for by Schedule I (or by Schedule I-A a3 the
case may be .........
Section 2(12)--Definition of ''executed"" and ''execution'': ''Executed'' and ''execution'' used with reference to instruments, mean ""signed"" and
signature.
Section 2(14)--Definition of ''instrument''. ''Instrument'' includes every document by which any right or liability is, or purports to be created,
transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or recorded.
Section 2(17)--Definition of ''Mortgage deed'': ""Mortgage deed"" includes every instrument whereby for the purpose of securing money advanced,
or to be advanced by way of loan, or an existing or future debt, or the performance of an engagement, one person transfers, or creates to, or in
favour of, another, a right over or in respect of specified property"".
Section 3.--""Subject to the provisions of this Act and the exemptions contained in Schedule I, the following instruments shall be chargeable with
duty of the amount indicated in that schedule as the proper duty therefore respectively, that is to say-
(a) every instrument mentioned in that schedule which, not having been previously executed by any person, is executed in India on or after the first
day of July 1899..........
Section 17.--""All instruments chargeable with duty and executed by any person in India shall be stamped before or at the time of execution"".
A very brief reference is sufficient to the relevant Articles of the Stamp Act, Under Article 23 of Schedule I, a document is liable to duty as ""a
conveyance as defined by Section 2(10).........
Section 2(23) embodies the definition of a ''receipt'', which ''includes any note, memorandum or writing (a) whereby any money, or any bill of
exchange, cheque or promissory note is acknowledged to have been received"". The relevant Article of Schedule I is Article 53, which is ""Receipt
as denned by Section 2(23) for, any money or other property, the amount or value of which exceeds twenty rupees"". One other Article that may
be conveniently referred to here, is Article 40 relating to ''mortgage deed'', of which there are two sub-divisions (a) and (b) depending upon
whether possession of property is forthwith given or is not.
The facts in R C. 13 of 1965 can be very briefly stated. On 13-11-1958, C. R. Gopalachari and C.G. Parvathavardhani Ammal sold valuable
properties, namely, rice, flour etc. mills, together with their accessories, for Rs. 17000 to S.P.S. Subramanian. The Instrument is styled as ''receipt''
and Is written on plain paper, bearing revenue stamp of the value of ten naya paise. Admittedly, the land and the buildings in which the rice and
flour mills and the appurtenant machinery were installed, were separately sold between the same persons, by a registered sale deed dated 15-11-
1958, the same date. But one very Important feature of the alleged receipt is that it does not, as may be considered ex facie from the facts, relate
to the sale of moveable properties. On the contrary, the properties sold for Rs. 17000 were embedded and attached to the earth, and the
instrument (receipt) really relates to the sale of Immovable properties, that is not in dispute.
It was contended on behalf of the respondent, on the authority of Crompton Engineering Co., (Madras) Ltd. Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue
Authority, Madras, that, notwithstanding the above fact, the instrument, not being registered, was not a valid conveyance, and could not be held
liable to stamp duty under Article 23 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act. We might here note that in an earlier reference to this court. The Chief
Controlling Revenue Authority, Madras Vs. The Madras Industrial Investment Corporation and Another, the learned Government Pleader sought
to raise the very same question, that we should now authoritatively interpret the scope of the dicta in Crompton Engineering Co., (Madras) Ltd.
Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Madras, or, if we accepted the argument of the learned Government Pleader on that aspect, have the
decision posted for reconsideration at the hands of a Fuller Bench. We then pointed out that there was no actual case before the court at all, which
involved the question, and that ""in the mere context of a hypothetical case and a document which may never eventuate"", we did not consider that
the principle of stare decisis should be departed from. But, in the present case, there can be no doubt that the dicta in Crompton Engineering Co.,
(Madras) Ltd. Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Madras, do fall to be squarely considered. The learned Additional Government Pleader
strenuously contends, that that decision cannot be taken as authority for the view that a document is not liable to be charged with duty, either as a
conveyance or as a mortgage deed, as the case may be merely because it is unregistered, and the law requires registration to effectuate such
transfer of rights. On the contrary, he contends that any such interpretation would, involve a situation which is patently opposed to the Stamp law,
which has always envisaged a document as being liable to stamp duty, at the time of its execution, and prior to its registration. We shall dwell on
this aspect for a moment, for we do not think that this proposition can be seriously doubted.
The proposition that the entire Stamp Law envisages a document as liable to stamp duty, at the time when the instrument is executed, would
appear to necessarily follow from the definition of ''chargeable'' u/s 2(6), from the terms of Section 3(a), and also from the explicit terms of Section
17 of the Stamp Act, that we have set forth earlier. The matter is indeed set at rest, by the dicta of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in New
Central Jute Mills Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. The State of West Bengal and Others, , though the facts of that case are different, and perhaps, an
unique situation. That was a case in which a mortgage deed was executed in Uttar Pradesh, though it related to property situate in West Bengal,
and the document was received in that State for registration. The document had been stamped in accordance with the law of West Bengal, but the
judgment held that when the document came up before the officers of Uttar Pradesh for decision, whether it was duly stamped or not, the officers
of Uttar Pradesh were bound to hold that the instrument was not duly stamped, as it did not bear Uttar Pradesh stamps. This particular situation of
a document executed in one State and attempted to be registered in another State, does not now concern us. But the Supreme Court
authoritatively held that, ""Primarily, the liability of an instrument to stamp duty arises on execution"". Again,
It is clear that in many cases the only one liability, viz., the liability on execution of the document will arise. After the amendment of the Act, the
liability can no longer be said to arise generally hi India but must be held to arise in the particular State where the instrument is executed.......In all
these cases the instrument can be said to be duly stamped, only if it bears stamps of the amount and description in accordance with the law of the
State concerned--the law including not only the Act but also the rules framed under the Act"".
The learned Additional Government Pleader would thus appear to b"" perfectly justified in his contention that the document has to be considered
as chargeable with stamp duty, when it is executed, which term ""executed"" itself has to be interpreted in the light of the definition embodied in
Section 2(12). Actually, there can be no question of impounding the document and recovering the proper stamp duty from the party liable,
subsequent to registration, and this is not disputed. The real question is, did the case in Crompton Engineering Co., (Madras) Ltd. Vs. Chief
Controlling Revenue Authority, Madras, purport to decide that, even though a document is otherwise complete as a conveyance, or a deed of
mortgage, and the recitals therein fully transfer the relevant rights in property, it is still not liable to stamp duty, either as a conveyance or as a deed
of mortgage, purely because it has not been registered?
The facts in Crompton Engineering Co., (Madras) Ltd. Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Madras, have to be carefully borne in mind, in
this context. We are definitely of the view that the dicta in this decision would appear to have been misinterpreted, and pressed beyond their
proper scope. The document itself is set forth, with reference to the effective Clauses (1) and (9) in the headnote of the judgment. After extracting
these clauses Rajagopalan J., who delivered the judgment on behalf of the Full Bench, stated as follows--
The document dated 22nd March 1948 was not attested. It was not registered"". The learned Judge then extracted the definition of ""mortgage
deed"" embodied in Section 2(17) of the Act, that we have earlier set forth. Later, he proceeded to extract Section 59 of the Transfer of Property
Act, which makes it essential that where a mortgage secures a principal of one hundred rupees or upwards, and it is other than a mortgage by
deposit of title deeds, it can be effected only by a registered instrument, signed by the mortgagor and attested by at least two witnesses. The
learned Judge then proceeded to make the following observations-
That the transfer contemplated by Section 2(17) of the Indian Stamp Act is a transfer valid in law, should be obvious. Such a valid transfer would
not have been effected under the document dated 22nd March 1948, which was neither attested nor registered. u/s 59 of the Transfer of Property
Act a valid mortgage can be effected only when the instrument is (1) signed by the mortgagor, (2) attested by at least two witnesses and (3)
registered. Leaving aside the question of registration of an insufficiently stamped document, no one can claim that a document not signed by the
mortgagor is an instrument of mortgage liable to be stamped........
The law embodied in Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act necessitates the signature of the mortgagor and the attestation by at least two
witnesses in equal degree. To ensure the validity of the instrument as a mortgage, attestation is made as much a part of the execution as the
signature of the mortgagor"".
Later, towards the end of the judgment, the learned Judge observes-
The very difference between the definition of an instrument in Section 2(14) and a mortgage deed in Section 2(17) should show that the ''transfer''
provided for in Section 2(17) is a transfer valid in law. To. make a document liable to stamp duty as a mortgage deed, it is not enough if the
document purports to effect a transfer. It must ''transfer'' (our emphasis),
We think that it is obvious and Indisputable that the last observation we have extracted, will have to be read in conjunction with the earlier
passage, which we have also set forth, and the facts of the case. It would be an erroneous principle of interpreting the judgment, to press into
service the last few observations alone, divorced from the earlier dicta and the explicit fact that the learned Judges were dealing with a document,
which could not be a ''mortgage deed'' at all, because it was not attested by two witnesses, as the law requires. Clearly, what the learned Judge
meant was that, where the document contained recitals of disposition creating a transfer of rights, by the very force of the recitals, between the
parties, and it has been completely executed the requirements of the law being satisfied in that respect it must be interpreted as actually transferring
the rights, and hence as amounting either to a conveyance or, a mortgage deed, as the case may be. But, where this execution is incomplete, even if
the recitals purport to transfer rights, the document cannot come under the category of a ''mortgage deed'', as defined in law. The learned Judge
explicitly observed ''Leaving aside the question of registration of an insufficiently stamped document'' in the earlier passage. We may point out that
though registration is necessary under the law, to give legal effect to the document, it is not merely a power of the executant to register the
document, the party to whom the interest is conveyed can also have it compulsorily registered. Obviously, the category under which an instrument
falls cannot be affected by the mere absence of registration, if the document is otherwise fully dispositive in character and duly executed.
The case in Crompton Engineering Co., (Madras) Ltd. Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Madras, did not go beyond this, for the learned
Judges of the Full Bench had before them an actual document which was not ''duly executed'' at all. A different interpretation of this judgment
would really render the provisions of the Stamp Act nugatory, envisaging as they do the charging of an instrument under the relevant Article of Sch,
I, depending solely on the terms of the creation of rights and due and complete execution, since the document is necessarily executed prior to its
registration. An interesting decision on this aspect is (Firm) Shamdin v. Collector, Amritsar, AIR 1936 Lah 449 During the course of the judgment
of the Special Bench, the learned Judges observed, with reference to the definition in Section 2(12) at p. 451--
......the intention of the new clause was to make it clear at that time a document becomes executed so as to be chargeable with stamp duty under
S. 3 of the Act. ...For the purpose of the Stamp Act, the clause makes all documents which are chargeable with duty, when executed, chargeable
as soon as they are signed by the executant"".
With respect, we may point out that the words ""by the executant"" occurring in this passage, are a distinct addition to the definition in Section 2(12)
and, hence, not warranted. If ''executed'' means ''signed'', and ""execution"" means ""signature"", it is clear that this will include the signatures oi all
persons, who are required by the character of the document to sign in the document, in order to give that document effect according to law. We
have no doubt, therefore, that if a document is of such a character that both parties to the document should sign it, to constitute it a binding
agreement between them, it should contain the signatures of both; similarly, if it had to be signed by two other attestors in order to make it legal,
this will also be necessarily part of the definition. But, once a document is complete in execution in sense, and the effective words of disposition are
there, immediately transferring rights by the very virtue of the document, the question of its subsequent registration is a distinct matter altogether,
and the document is certainly liable to stamp duty with reference to the relevant Article of the Stamp Act, since execution is complete.
We have next to see whether in this particular case, the Tamil text of the alleged receipt (which has been placed before us) does or does not
justify the interpretation of the document as a complete conveyance, as defined in the Stamp Act. We think it is sufficient to observe that very
explicit words are to be found in the Tamil text, to the effect that for the consideration of Rs. 17000, absolute title was being conveyed in the
properties to the vendee. There can be no doubt whatever, therefore, that this is not a receipt, but a conveyance, and the due and complete
execution of the document is undeniable.
Learned counsel for the respondent (Sri Gopalaswami Aiyangar) has drawn our attention to certain observations of Hawkins, J. and Lord
Esher M.R. In Commrs. of Inland Revenue v. Angus and Co., the Same v. Lewies and Sons, (1889) 23 Q.B.D. 579. That was a very different
case of a document which was really an agreement to convey, which the Court of Equity would have enforced by a decree for specific
performance. In the event of the vendor not fulfilling his contract, Such a document, the courts held, did not fall within the definition of ''conveyance
on sale'' in Section 70 of the Stamp Act, 1870. We are of the view that there is nothing in the dicta in this decision, which can possibly reinforce
the interpretation that the document, with which we are now concerned, is not, by its terms, effective as an actual conveyance. As we have
stressed, due execution is undisputed. As Lord Esher M. R. said if the document is not effective as a conveyance, but it requires a subsequent
decree for specific performance ""it would be a contradiction of terms"" to say that by itself it constituted a conveyance. We are quite unable to see
how this decision helps the respondent.
This reference has to be accordingly answered in the form that the document is liable for stamp duty under Article 23 of Schedule I and that
the dicta in Crompton Engineering Co., (Madras) Ltd. Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Madras, will have to be interpreted as of
restricted scope and with reference to the facts of that case, as we have earlier pointed out.
R.C. 12 and 17 of 1965: These references can be very briefly disposed of. Admittedly, on the same interpretation, these documents cannot be
possibly, held to fall within the category of mortgage deeds under Article 40 (b) of Schedule I, in each of these two cases, it is indisputable, that the
document was not attested, as required by law, quite apart from the question of registration. Therefore, within the scope of the relevant definition,
these were not ''executed'' documents at all. They do not fall within the category, because they are not complete documents purporting to transfer
rights of the kind contemplated. In these two cases, the References must be declined.