Skip to content


V.S. Shanmugha Mudaliar Vs. Board of Revenue, Madras and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberLetters Patent Appeal No. 133 of 1951
Judge
Reported inAIR1955Mad304
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226; Stamp Act, 1899 - Sections 57
AppellantV.S. Shanmugha Mudaliar
RespondentBoard of Revenue, Madras and anr.
Appellant AdvocateN.R. Raghavachariar, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateSpecial Govt. Pleader
Cases ReferredChief Controlling Revenue Authority v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd.
Excerpt:
- .....or for such other appropriate order to restrain the board of revenue from enforcing the stamp duty and penalty. that application was dismissed by subba rao j. on the ground that the result of the dismissal of the prior application for certiorari should be deemed to be that there was a final adjudication that the stamp duty imposed by the revenue divisional officer was correct.2. with respect to the learned judge, we think that the result of the dismissal of the prior application could not have the effect of an adjudication as to the correctness of the stamp duty. though the order of the revenue board may not be quashed by a writ of certiorari, it was certainly open to this court to have directed the revenue board to make a reference to this court under section 57, indian stamp.....
Judgment:

Rajamannar, C.J.

1. This appeal against the judgment of Subba Rao J. arises out of the levy of stamp duty and penalty by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheyyar, on a document on the ground that it was a partition deed. There was an appeal filed against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer to the Board of Revenue who dismissed it on the ground that there was no reason to interfere. To quash the said order of the Board of Revenue, there was an application for a writ of certiorari to this Court, but this Court dismissed the application on the ground that the order of the Board of Revenue was not contrary to the principles of natural justice. Thereafter, the appellant approached the Revenue Board for a revision of its previous order, but the Board rejected the petition. Thereupon, the appellant filed another application to this Court for a writ of prohibition or for such other appropriate order to restrain the Board of Revenue from enforcing the stamp duty and penalty. That application was dismissed by Subba Rao J. on the ground that the result of the dismissal of the prior application for certiorari should be deemed to be that there was a final adjudication that the stamp duty imposed by the Revenue Divisional Officer was correct.

2. With respect to the learned Judge, we think that the result of the dismissal of the prior application could not have the effect of an adjudication as to the correctness of the stamp duty. Though the order of the Revenue Board may not be quashed by a writ of certiorari, it was certainly open to this Court to have directed the Revenue Board to make a reference to this court under Section 57, Indian Stamp Act. This Court on the prior occasion was not inclined to pass such an order. The decision of the Supreme Court in -- 'Chief Controlling Revenue Authority v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd.', AIR 1950 SC 218 (A), which has direct bearing on the facts of this case is ample authority for the position that in an appropriate case this Court can and ought to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the Board of Revenue to make a reference to the Court. We are of opinion that this is the (sic) that should be followed in this case. (sic) application we cannot go into the merits (sic) levy of the stamp duty or penalty.

3. We hereby direct the Board of Revenue to refer the case with its own opinion thereon, under Section 57, Indian Stamp Act for the decision of this Court. The appeal is allowed and there will be an order accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //