GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS versus RAJA MOHAMMAD AMIR AHMAD KHAN

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 97 · Decided: 16-02-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.L. KAPUR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
97 
to stage in respect of its relationship with respondent I 
'96' 
in rega:d to th~ possession of this land have changed 
-;:: 
from tune to time and that shows that the appellant Vedaraneeswarar-
was at pains to put forward a basis on which it could 
swamy 
claim either possession or enhanced rent. The fact 
n,,.,,,ehanam 
that respondent l is making large profits out of this . 
v .. 
t 
1 · 
th 
" 
t' d . 
I h< Uominion of 
proper y may e~p au~ . e ~ppeuan s 
cs1re to get 
India,,. Anr. 
some more share m the said mcome but that cannot 
assist the appellant if it has parted with the property GojenJragadhar J. 
permanently as early as 1805 011 the terms and condi-
tions specified in Ex. A. I. In our opinion, the High 
Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the 
transaction evidenced by Ex. A. 1 is a permanent 
lease and that respondent 1 is entitled to retain posses-
sion of the whole of the property on the terms and 
conditions specified in the said document. We must 
accordingly hold that the appellant's claim either for 
possession or for enhancement of rent has been pro-
perly rejected by the courts below. 
In the result the appeal fails but there will be no 
order as to costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH 
AND OTHERS 
v. 
RAJ A MOHAMMAD AMIR AHMAD KHAN 
(J. L. KAPUR, M. HrnAYATULLAH and J.C. SHAH, JJ.) 
Stamp Duty-Instrument presented to Collector for opinion as 
to duty chargeable-Collector assessing duty-Impounding and 
demand of duty-Legality of-Indian Stamp Act, z899 (II of z899), 
SS. JI, J2, 33· 
The respondent executed an instrument and presented it to 
th·o Collector for iii> opinion under s. 3r Stamp Act as to the 
duty charg''J.ble. 
Th.e Collector; after a reference to the Board 
of J{';venue, determined the duty payable. He then impounded 
the i11strument and ordered that the duty be deposited within 
13 
F1bruary r6. 
98 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1962] 
x96x 
fifteen days. Later, a notice was served upon the respondent to 
deposit the amount of stamp duty and penalty within one 
Gov.,nment of month and threatening that in default proceedings would be 
Uttar Pradesh 
taken to recover them as arrears of land revenue. The respon-
& Ors. 
dent challenged the legality of the impounding of the instru-
v. 
ment and demand of stamp duty and penalty. 
Raja Mohammad 
Held, that after determination of the stamp duty the 
Amir Ahmad lihan Collector became Junctus officio and could not impound the 
instrument or demand duty and penalty. Under s. 31 the Col-
lector has merely to determine the proper amount of duty. 11 
the person executing the instrument wants to effectuate the 
instrument or to use it for purposes of evidence he has to make 
up the duty and under s. 32 the Collector makes the necessary 
ondorsement. Section 33 empowers every person in- charge of 
a public office before whom an instrument chargeable with dnty 
is produced or comes in the performance of his functions to 
impound the instrument if it is not duly stamped. When an 
instrument is presented to the Collector under s. 31 for deter-
mination of duty it cannot be said that it "is produced or comes 
in the performance of his functions" as contemplated by s. 33. 
These words refer firstly to producti& before judicial or other 
efficers performing judicial functions as evidence of any fact to 
be proved, and secondly refer to other offi~ers who have to per-
form any function in regard to those in,ftruments when they 
come before them, e.g., registration. 
Kapur ]. 
In Re Cooke and Kelly, (1932) I.L.R. 59 Cal. II7 r, held 
obiter. 
Collector, Ahmednagar v. Rambhau Tukaram Nirhali, A.LR. 
1930 Born. 392, Paiku v. Gaya, I.L.R. [1948] Nag. 950 and 
Chunduri Panakala Rao v. Penugonda Kumaraswami, A.LR. 1937 
Mad. 763, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 369 of 1957. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated the 
January 27, 1956, of the Allahabad High Court 
(Lucknow Bench) at Lucknow in Civil Misc. Applica-
cation No. 17 of 1954 (0. J.). 
O. B. Agarwala and 0. P. Lal, for the appellant. 
V. D. Misra, for the respondent. 
1961. February 16. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
KAPUR, J.-This is an appeal against the judgment 
and order of the High Court of Allahabad on a certifi-
cate granted by that court. The respondent filed a 
-
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
99 
~. 'i petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying 
that the imposition of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.