Skip to content


In Re: Stamp Reference by the Board of Revenue - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1915)ILR37All159
AppellantIn Re: Stamp Reference by the Board of Revenue
Excerpt:
act no. ii of 1899 (indian stamp act), section 4 - stamp--settlement of family property effected by two deeds, one modifying the other--full duty paid on the first. - .....out of which it arises are stated by the board of revenue to be that on the 2nd of july, 1912, raja shambhu dial and his brother babu brij kishore executed an instrument, setting forth a family arrangement regarding their joint property. the instrument was taken to the collector of cawnpore in accordance with the provisions of section 31 of the same act and was held to be an instrument of partition chargeable with a duty of rs. 925. this duty was paid. on the 23rd of august, 1912, the two brothers took another instrument before the same collector for adjudication as to the proper stamp duty to be paid. this instrument provided, inter alia, that the original deed of agreement, namely, that of the 2nd of july, 1912, should remain in force after certain alterations entered into later.....
Judgment:

George Knox, Muhammad Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.

1. This is a reference by the Chief Controlling Revenue authority of these provinces made under Section 57 of Act No. II of 1899. The facts out of which it arises are stated by the Board of Revenue to be that on the 2nd of July, 1912, Raja Shambhu Dial and his brother Babu Brij Kishore executed an instrument, setting forth a family arrangement regarding their joint property. The instrument was taken to the Collector of Cawnpore in accordance with the provisions of Section 31 of the same Act and was held to be an instrument of partition chargeable with a duty of Rs. 925. This duty was paid. On the 23rd of August, 1912, the two brothers took another instrument before the same Collector for adjudication as to the proper stamp duty to be paid. This instrument provided, inter alia, that the original deed of agreement, namely, that of the 2nd of July, 1912, should remain in force after certain alterations entered into later on. Both deeds were to be equally binding. The alterations referred to were (1) some alterations on purely nominal matters which need not be considered; (2) instead of the sum of Rs. 1,600, fixed for travelling expenses in the deed of prior date the sum of Rs. 1,500 was to be substituted out of which Rs. 1,000 was to go to Raja Shambhu Dial and Rs. 500 to Babu Brij Kishore; (3) the sum of Rs. 12,000, assessed value of the house, kothi and garden, was raised to Rs. 15,000. This was to be paid by Raja Shambhu Dial to Babu Brij Kishore. The period of payment which had been fixed as one year was extended to one and a half years; (4) the ahata was to, be made over to Babu Brij Kishore without any compensation whatever; (5) Raja Shambhu Dial was to pay in any case the sum of Rs. 3,000, in the marriage ceremony of Babu Brij Kishore's I daughter; (6) a garden out of the joint stock Was to remain in on the sole possession of Raja Shambhu Dial and Rs. 2,300 were to be given to Babu Brij Kishore. The original deed of agreement was to remain in force except so far as the above alterations were concerned. The Board of Revenue considered that the case fell within the principle laid down in the ruling of this Court in Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 79 of 1912 and were of opinion that the latter instrument was a fresh instrument of partition to be stamped ad valorem. We sent for the ruling cited by the Board of Revenue. We are agreed that it has no bearing whatever upon the case before us. The obvious intention of the contracting parties was that the settlement of certain moneys and properties covered by the deed of the 2nd of July, 1912, should be re-adjusted. No-new property was introduced into the second deed. Both deeds were contingent upon the coming to pass of other events which were at the time of execution events in the future. The intention was that they were to form and to be regarded as one deed. After carefully considering the language used in both deeds, and remembering always that Act No. II of 1899 is a fiscal enactment and that its provisions should be construed in favour of the subject, we hold that the present case falls within the purview of Section 4 of the Act. The principal-instrument has been charged with the duty prescribed in schedule I for settlement of property. The latter instrument is chargeable with a duty of one rupee only. A copy of this our Judgment under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar will be sent to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority.


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