Rajendra Babu, J.
1. In these Petitions the short Question that arises for Consideration is whether a declaration filed in Form No. 3 prescribed under the Rules framed under the Karnataka Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1974, is a simple mortgage for the purpose of stamp duty to be collected under the Karnataka Stamp Act or not. The form of declaration is as follows :
'I......aged .....years son of .......residing at ....... being desirous of taking financial assistance from ...... (here specify the name of the credit agency) makes this declaration as required by Section 6 of the Karnataka Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1974 that I own land, immovable property or hold land as specified in the Schedule below and I hereby mortgage create a charge on such land/immovable property in favour of ......(here specify the name of the credit agency) as security for the payment of the amount of financial assistance of Rs......sought by me and also for all future financial assistance which the credit agency may give me together with interest thereon and for all costs and expenses in connection therewith.
I hereby declare that the facts mentioned above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Signature of the applicant.
Applicant's signature attested by:
1.
2.
Schedule giving description of the property with the name of the village, taluk, district, Sy. No. boundaries, area, assessment, approximate value, encumbrances should be shown. If the immovable property is not land, full particulars of the immovable property are to be furnished. Whether the land is owned or whether the land is held as a tenant also should be shown.
2. The authorities concerned having held that the declaration in question is a mortgage, called upon the petitioners to pay the deficit stamp fee. Aggrieved by that action petitioners preferred appeals before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal examined the matter at great length and on examination of the various provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1974 and the Stamp Act came to the conclusion that the said declaration creates a mortgage and therefore the Revenue Authorities were justified in reaching the conclusion that the deficit stamp duty is to be paid.
3. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that along with the declaration deposit of title deeds is made. Therefore, it does not amount to simple mortgage, but an agreement to deposit the title deeds and the Karnataka Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions Act is a special enactment providing for a special procedure for borrowing monies and therefore, the provisions of the Stamp Act does not attract the transaction and even, if it does, the transaction in question is only a deposit of title deeds and therefore, the duty could be imposed 'only under item No,6 of the Schedule to the Stamp Act. . .
4. Section 2(1)(n) of the Act reads as follows:
''Mortgage deed' includes every instrument whereby for the purpose of securing money advanced or to be advanced or to be advanced by way of loan, or an existing or further debt, or the performance of an engagement, one person transfers, or creates, to or in favour of, another, a right over or in respect of specified property.'
A reading of the provision makes it clear that any instrument which for the purpose of securing money advanced by way of loan or to be advanced by way of loan or one person transfers or creates in favour of another person a right over a specific property is called a mortgage. In the present case a reading of the declaration would make it clear that the party concerned would offer certain property by way of security for the payment of amount of financial assistance and the description of the property is also set forth in the schedule thereto. Therefore it is clearly a case of mortgage, because there is borrowing of money and offer of security of certain immovable property in terms of Section 2(1)(n) of the Act. There is no contemplation of deposit of title deeds at all in the said declaration. When that declaration is required to be registered and the declaration itself creates interest in respect of the property by way of charge or security in the property in question, it should certainly be held to be a mortgage as has been held by the Tribunal. In that view, I find no merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners.
5. However the learned Counsel for the petitioner appealed to me that it is only poor agriculturists who have borrowed money and such persons should not be burdened with payment of stamp duty and that was not the intention of law. That intention is neither clearly expressed in the Act under which they borrowed money nor an exemption is granted under the Stamp Act. It is only in respect of the registration fee exemption is granted specifically and it shows the stamp, duty is not under the purview of that provision. In that view of the matter, I do not think the provisions of law could be interpreted. If at all the petitioners need to get the benefit thereof, the petitioners will have to approach the Government and obtain the benefit at the hands of the Government. In the result, these Petitions stand dismissed, Rule discharged.