Lakshminarayana Vs. Ramajogigaru and ors. - Court Judgment
|Respondent||Ramajogigaru and ors.|
|Cases Referred||Shiddapa v. Irava|
- section 16 (1) (c) :[tarun chatterjee & aftab alam,jj] ready and willing to perform-concurrent findings of fact on consideration of evidence on record that appellants-buyers were not ready and willing to perform terms and conditions of agreement for sale - buyers failing to pay balance consideration before agitating matter before supreme court held, concurrent finding cannot be interfered with.
section 20: [tarun chatterjee & aftab alam,jj] whether time is the essence of contract held, many instance in contract which repeatedly showed that time was to be of essence of contract were specifically mentioned. clear condition in contract that purchasers would have to definitely deposit balance amount by date stipulated in contract for sale show that time was essence of contract. .....the value of that share, but this does not make it an acknowledgment intended to be used as evidence of the debt so as to fall within the article. when read with the letter to which it is a reply, it must, in our opinion, be treated as an agreement not otherwise provided for by the stamp act, and. it was, therefore, chargeable with a duty of eight annas under article i, clause 5 (c) of schedule i. as, however, it was admitted in evidence by the district munsif without payment of stamp duty and penalty, the district judge in appeal was precluded by section 34 of the stamp act from rejecting it as inadmissible. this has been repeatedly decided by all the high courts. [ramasami chetti v. ramasami chetti, i.l.r., 5 m. 220; khoob lall v. jungle singh, ib. 3 c., 787 ; devachand v. hirachand.....
1. We do not consider that Exhibit A is an instrument chargeable with stamp duty of one anna under Article 1, Schedule I of the General Stamp Act, (I of 1897).
2. It is a letter setting forth the terms of compromise arranged between the parties with regard to the dispute between them regarding the plaintiff's share in the partnership business. There is no doubt an approximate statement of the value of that share, but this does not make it an acknowledgment intended to be used as evidence of the debt so as to fall within the article. When read with the letter to which it is a reply, it must, in our opinion, be treated as an agreement not otherwise provided for by the Stamp Act, and. it was, therefore, chargeable with a duty of eight annas under Article I, Clause 5 (c) of Schedule I. As, however, it was admitted in evidence by the District Munsif without payment of stamp duty and penalty, the District Judge in appeal was precluded by Section 34 of the Stamp Act from rejecting it as inadmissible. This has been repeatedly decided by all the High Courts. [Ramasami Chetti v. Ramasami Chetti, I.L.R., 5 M. 220; Khoob Lall v. Jungle Singh, Ib. 3 C., 787 ; Devachand v. Hirachand Kamaraj, Ib. 13 B., 449 ; Shiddapa v. Irava, Ib. 18 B., 787.
3. The ground, therefore, on which the District Judge held that the claim was barred by limitation, fails.
4. We must, therefore, set aside his decree and remand the appeal for disposal on the merits and in accordance with law. Costs in this second appeal to be paid by the respondents in this Court.