SRIVASTAVA, J. - (1.) THIS is a reference by the Board of Revenue under S. 57 (1) (a) of the Indian Stamp Act.
(2.) ON the 1st of December, 1950, Kunwar Padum Bahadur Singh executed a document in favour of Ramesh Chandra. In this document Kunwar Padum Bahadur Singh was described as the seller, while Ramesh Chandra was described as the buyer. Clause I of this document is in these words : "The seller in consideration of the payment by the buyer, as hereinafter provided, of the price of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousands) sells to the buyer, subject to the conditions hereinafter appearing, all the trees excepting sal sain, shisham and Khair up to 15 inches girth measured at a height of 6 inches from the surface in Compartment Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 11 including the part commonly known as Majhara in part of Village Rynorpur Grant, Pargana Eastern Doon, District Dehradun, approximate area 886 acres." Then comes Cl. 2 which provides as follows : The Buyer shall pay the said sum of Rs. 50,000 (Rs. fifty thousands) to the seller by the following instalments, namely : 1. Rs. 5,000 (Rs. five thousand) on or before 3 -1 -1951. 2. Rs. 15,000 (Rs. Fifteen thousand) on or before 15 -4 -1951. 3. Rs. 10,000 (Rs. Ten thousand) on or before 15 -9 -1951. 4. Rs. 10,000 (Rs. Ten thousand) on or before 3 -1 -1952. 5. Rs. 10,000 (Rs. Ten thousand) on or before 15 -3 -1952. The other clauses lay down the conditions under which the trees sold were to be cut and removed. The seller was authorised in case the forest produce exported by the buyer equalled or exceeded the price paid by him to stop further export until the buyer had paid an additional amount and it was also provided that the amount of instalments provided by Cl. 2 was to remain a charge on the produce sold. The document was stamped with a stamp of Re. 1 only and was attested by two witnesses Shiam Singh and Brijesh besides being signed by the two parties to the transaction.
(3.) THE document came to the notice of the Collector who was of the opinion that it was deficiently stamped. He thought that it was a deed of conveyance as defined in S. 2 (10) of the Stamp Act and was as such chargeable with duty under Art. 23 of the schedule of the Act. He, therefore, made a reference to the Board of Revenue, which is the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority within the meaning of the Stamp Act, for its opinion. The Board of Revenue felt doubtful as to whether the document was liable to duty as a conveyance under Art. 23 or whether it was exempt from duty altogether under exemption (a) of Art. 5 of the schedule. It has, therefore, referred the question to this Court for decision under S. 59 of the Act. ;