Stamp duty classification: water-drawing right was neither lease nor conveyance, but an agreement chargeable under Article 5(c).

A reference on stamp duty was held competent because it raised questions of law about the legal character of the instrument, and an earlier Collector's view on a similar document did not bar consideration of the dispute. The instrument granting a right to draw water from a river was not a lease, because a lease requires immovable property; it was not a conveyance, because no existing title or interest in property was transferred inter vivos; and it was not a profits a prendre, because it created no interest in land or the stream. It was therefore an agreement chargeable under Article 5(c) of Schedule I-B.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the reference made by the Board of Revenue was competent under the Stamp Act; (ii) whether the instrument was a lease, conveyance, or an agreement chargeable under Article 5(c) of Schedule I-B; (iii) whether the right conferred amounted to a profits a prendre.

Issue (i): whether the reference made by the Board of Revenue was competent under the Stamp Act.

Analysis: The reference was made on questions of law arising from the nature of the instrument. The existence of an earlier determination by the Collector on a similar document did not bar the Board from referring the matter where the legal character of the instrument remained in dispute. The Court also declined to send the matter back for a fresh statement, having found the alleged misstatement immaterial to decision of the reference.

Conclusion: The reference was competent and maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether the instrument was a lease, conveyance, or an agreement chargeable under Article 5(c) of Schedule I-B.

Analysis: A lease under Section 2(16) requires immovable property. The right granted was only to draw water from the river, and water was treated as movable property, not immovable property. The instrument did not transfer any existing title or interest in property inter vivos, which is essential for a conveyance under Section 2(10). The document showed only an arrangement for future supply and payment depending on future contingencies, so it was no completed transfer of property.

Conclusion: The instrument was neither a lease nor a conveyance, but an agreement chargeable under Article 5(c) of Schedule I-B.

Issue (iii): whether the right conferred amounted to a profits a prendre.

Analysis: A profits a prendre requires an interest in land and a right to take some profit of the soil. The instrument conferred no interest in the land or stream, and running water was not treated as a product of the soil. The right to draw water was therefore not a profits a prendre.

Conclusion: The right granted did not amount to a profits a prendre.

Final Conclusion: The instrument was held to be an agreement chargeable to stamp duty under Article 5(c) of Schedule I-B, and the reference was answered in favour of the revenue authority.

Ratio Decidendi: For stamp duty purposes, an instrument is a lease only if it concerns immovable property, a conveyance requires an actual transfer of property, and a right to draw running water without any interest in land or the stream is neither a lease nor a profits a prendre but an agreement.

---