IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16236 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JAIBE MARY CLEOPHUS,AGED 41 YEARS, W/O.THOMAS.P.J.,POOPPANA HOUSE, THOPPUMPADY,ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS M.JACOB SRI.G.RAJAGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORTKOCHI,ERNAKULAM. BY GP SRI.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ....................... W.P.(C).16236/2009 ....................... Dated this the 15th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Ext.P1 agreement was executed between the petitioner, her mother and sister, inter alia with regard to the collection of rent from the tenants in the property belonging to the petitioner. Agreement is stated to have been executed on 27.3.2009. Parties to the agreement entertained doubt as to the stamp duty to be levied thereon. An application was filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer, the competent authority, on 3.4.2009 seeking an adjudication of the stamp duty to be levied on Ext.P1. The said application was rejected on the ground that the signature of the parties to the agreement has not been attested and that the actual execution of the agreement is therefore not ascertainable, since there is no attestation and though the agreement is dated 27.3.2009, there are no materials to verify whether it was presented before the RDO within the prescribed time frame. Petitioner's request for adjudication of the stamp duty to be levied on Ext.P1 was therefore, rejected. This has been challenged in the writ petition. W.P.(C).16236/2009 2 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 3. Section 31(1) of the Stamp Act reads as follows:- Adjudication as to proper Stamps - (1). When any instrument, whether executed or not and whether previously stamped or not is brought to the Collector, and the person bringing it applies to have the opinion of that officer as to duty, if any, with which it is chargeable and pays a fee of such amount (not exceeding ten rupees and not less than one rupee) as the Collector may in each case direct, the Collector shall determine the duty, if any with which, his judgment, the instrument is chargeable. 4. Petitioner is not clear about the stamp duty to be levied on Ext.P1. Section 31 provides for adjudication as to the proper stamp duty to be levied on any instrument. District Collector, under Section 31 of the Act, also has power to determine whether the W.P.(C).16236/2009 3 instrument is chargeable at all. District Collector could require the party, under Section 31(1) of the Act, to file an affidavit or produce other evidence to prove that the facts and circumstances affecting the chargeability of the instrument with duty are truly set forth. In the present case, it is not mentioned in Ext.P4 that the true facts relevant for the purpose of determining the stamp duty leviable on the instrument, have not been supplied in spite of requisition. Objections in Ext.P4 are not sustainable. It is first stated that it is not clear that the agreement was actually executed on 27.3.2009. Such objection seems to be unsustainable in the light of Ext.P3 which shows that a request is made on 3.4.2009. Second objection is that the signatures contained in the agreement have not been attested. The District Collector under the Stamp Act, is not required to determine whether the agreement has been properly executed or whether there is any deficiency in this regard. On being moved under Section 31 of the Act, he is only to determine whether the instrument is chargeable and if so, the rate of stamp duty to be levied on such W.P.(C).16236/2009 4 instrument. Reasons for rejection contained in Ext.P4 have nothing to do with the exercise of power under Section 31 of the Act. 5. Accordingly, Ext.P4 is set aside. 2nd respondent is directed to adjudicate whether Ext.P1 agreement is chargeable with stamp duty. If so, the stamp duty that is to be levied on Ext.P1 in terms of the provisions of the Act shall be determined. Orders shall be passed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs