Desai, C.J. - (1.) A report made by the Chief Inspector of Stamps in this First Appeal has been referred to a larger Bench by a Division Bench, which was or the opinion that the decision of this Court in Ramohand v. Moti Thad, 1982 All LJ 485: (AIR 1962 All requires reconsideration.
(2.) THE report is about the stamp duty payable on a document executed by Rani Dhandevi Kunwar (now represented by the Collector, Jaunpur, the respondent) on one side and Jageshar Naik appellant on the other side. It is styled as an agreement and is stamped as such i.e., stamp duty of Re. 1-00 has been paid on it. The gist of the agreement is as follows: Rani Dhandevi Kunwar is the sole owner of certain trees and in possession of them and has accepted the offer of Jageshar Naik to buy them for Rs. 1,00,000. Jagesh Naik undertakes to pay the price by a certain date and if he does not pay it, the Rani will have the power to stop the cutting of the trees and Jageshar Naik's entry into the land. Jageshar Naik has the right to start the cutting from the date of the execution of the agreement. In the event of default by him in paying the price, the Rani will have the power to take the timber of the trees already cut down and the remaining trees into her possession. She will give all facilities to Jageshar Naik in the aot of cutting the trees. The cutting of the trees must be completed, and the land vacated, by Jageshar Naik within 8 years. The document is signed by the two parties and attested by five witnesses.
(3.) THE document was relied upon by both the parties to suit No. 91 of 1951, from which this appeal arises. The plaintiff-respondent, filed the original document and the defendant-appellant Jageshar Naik filed a duplicate of it. The genuineness of both the documents was admitted and both were admitted in evidence and exhibited. The endorsement of the original was: "Ext. 1 Ad. against deft. A. C. J. 16/10" The endorsement on the duplicate was "Ext. A-l Ad. against plff. A. C. J. 16/10" ;