VENKATARAMAIYA, CJ. - (1.)In C.P.Nos.148 and 149 of 1953 the petitioner applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and for stay of execution of a decree passed by this Court. An order was passed for stay of execution on condition that the petitioner should furnish security to the satisfaction of the lower Court. In pursuance of this order the petitioner executed a mortgage bond and doubt was raised as to the sufficiency of stamp it bore or the value of the stamp paper on which it is written. The petitioner thereupon applied to the Assistant Commissioner and obtained a certificate from him that the instrument is sufficiently stamped.
(2.)Nevertheless the learned District Judge has held that it is not properly stamped and therefore not acceptable. Mr.Krishnamurthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, argued that the order of the learned Judge is wrong in view of the certificate granted by the Assistant Commissioner and that his opinion in the matter must prevail. Under Section 31 of the Stamp Act when an instrument is brought to the Deputy Commissioner, which includes any officer specially appointed to perform his duties, under the Act, he shall determine the duty with which the instrument is chargeable and Section 32 requires that if the duty chargeable for the instrument has been fully paid, he has to so certify by endorsement on it. Section 40 prescribes the procedure to be adopted when the instrument is impounded by the Deputy Commissioner or sent to him. He may either certify that it is duly stamped or levy a penalty besides the proper duty. In the former case when the opinion is that the instrument is duly stamped, the certificate granted by him has to be treated as conclusive evidence of the matter stated therein. In two cases of the Sind High Court it has been held that the Civil Court cannot review the correctness of the order made by the revenue authority. In Gangaram Shewaram v. Mallik Nur Ahmed, A.I.R. 1935 Sind 48 the question was whether the instrument was a bond or a pronote. The Court observed :
"The Collector having treated the documents as bonds and levied duty on them as such, his decision cannot be challenged except under Section 57, Stamp Act, or reference by the Chief Controlling Eevenue Authority "
after referring to the similar view expressed in the earlier case, Firm of Parsram Hirji v. Firm of Parsram Hassanand, A.I.R.1926 Sind 211.
(3.)There are some cases such as Abubacker Labbai v. Chinnathambi, A.I.R. 1938 Mad. 262 (FB), stamp Reference (Jangilal) In re, A.I.R.1931 All 189 (FB), which lend support to the view of the learned District Judge but the effect of the endorsement by the authorities under the Stamp Act did not arise for decision in these. Having regard to the provisions of the Stamp Act and the certificate granted by the Assistant Commissioner, the bond must be treated as sufficiently stamped.
;