TMI Blog1965 (3) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trar, Jabalpur, sent the document to the Collector, Jabalpur, purporting to act under paragraph 232 of the Registration Manual reporting that the deed was insufficiently stamped The Sub-Divisional Officer, Jabalpur, before whom the report of the Sub-Registrar came up for disposal, accepting the report, held that the value of the property to which the deed related was ₹ 2,93,000/- and not ₹ 30,000/ as stated in the deed. Accordingly he made an order directing the petitioner to deposit ₹ 2,859/- being the deficit stamp duty. The Sub-Divisional Officer treated the deed as one of sale The petitioners then made an application under Section 56 of she Stamp Act before the Board of Revenue which is the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. That authority took the view that the document was a settlement deed and chargeable to stamp duty under Article, 58 of Schedule I-A to the Stamp Act; and that the executant had not stated in the deed the true value of the property which was ₹ 2,93,000/-. 3. The answer to the first question turns on the provisions of Section 33(1) of the Act which runs as follows: Every person having by law or consent of parties authority to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ower to examine whether an instrument already registered was or was not duly stamped and to impound it. As soon as the registering officer registers a document presented to him for registration, the function in the performance of which the document was produced before him is over and thereafter becomes functus officio having no power under Section 33 to impound the instrument. 4. The matter is really concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Govt. of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan, AIR 1961 SC 787. That was a case where the question arose whether the Collector has any power to impound an instrument sent to him for adjudication under Section 31 of the Stamp Act. The Supreme Court held that under that Section the Collector had no such power, as the provision gave him the power only to give his opinion as regards the duty with which in his judgment the instrument was chargeable and when that function was performed by the Collector he became functus officio. It was observed by the Supreme Court that the power to impound only exists when an instrument is produced before judicial officers or other officers performing judicial functions as evidence of any fact to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the opinion of my Lord the Chief Justice with which Pandey J., my other respected colleague on the Bench, has agreed. But I regret my inability to concur with the same, and hence 1 am expressing respectfully my differing opinion. 8. It is held by my learned colleagues that the registering authority has no powers to examine whether the instrument in question has been duly stamped or not after having registered it. This is being held on the simple ground that after registration of that instrument it becomes functus officio. In support of this embargo views expressed in the following cases are being followed (a) AIR 1961 SC 787: (b) AIR 1930 Bom 392; (c) AIR 1937 Mad 763; (d) ILR (1948) Nag 950: (AIR 1949 Nag 214). 9. In my opinion, which I most respectfully venture to express, there was, strictly speaking, no question of any authority being functus officio in the case before the Supreme Court. As I have been able to understand that decision of the Supreme Court, what their Lordships of the Supreme Court have decided is that there was no occasion at all for the Collector performing his functions under Section 31 of the Stamp Act to impound the instrument and proceed to recove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s expressed by the Supreme Court should properly be read along with the views expressed by the High Court of Allahabad which were being upheld in appeal therefrom in Mohammad Amir Khan v. Deputy Commr., (S) AIR 1956 All 453 (FB). It will then be very clear why there was no question of any authority being functus officio, although that expression has been used by the Allahabad High Court also. 10. So far as the other cases relied upon are concerned, a perusal of the same would disclose that the doctrine of functus officio did arise and was rightly applied. There the authority concerned having fully and finally performed its function including that with respect to the instrument in question, could not retrace its steps and start over again by impounding the document and proceeding to recover the penalty and stamp duty. In this connection Section 36 of the Stamp Act may be seen. In the instant case also if the registering authority had parted with the instrument it could not have been, entitled to call it back and impound it or deal with it for that purpose What the expression produced or comes in the performance of his functions means has been pointed out in In re Narayandas, IL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing authority under the Registration Act to examine the instrument from the point of its liability under the Stamp Act. 1 am aware that under Rule 4 of the Rules framed under Section 69 of the Registration Act it is provided that the registering authority shall examine the instrument with a view to see if it is duly stamped or not But the very fact, that the Act itself lays down no such provision or debars the registering authority from registering the instrument not duly stamped, rather supports my view that examination of the instrument to see whether it is duly stamped or not, even though expected under the rules to be done before proceeding to register the instrument, is not by way of any function or part of function which the registering authority as such performs under the Registration Act. Since the infirmity in the matter of stamp duty paid on the instrument does not affect the jurisdiction as such of the registering authority, the examination of the instrument as aforesaid would not also be a step in aid of its registration or in due performance of the function of registration. In this view there can be no question of the registering authority being functus officio after t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
