Skip to content


Amirthammal Vs. Madalakaram Alias Ramalinga Goundan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in57Ind.Cas.184; (1920)38MLJ503
AppellantAmirthammal
RespondentMadalakaram Alias Ramalinga Goundan
Cases ReferredKulwanta v. Mahabier Prasad I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- wallis, c.j.1. following the decision in kulwanta v. mahabier prasad i.l.r. (1888) all. 16 (f.b.) . and ref. case 19 of 1911 we hold that the bond must be stamped both under the court fees act and under article 40 of schedule i of the stamp act, as it comes within the definition of a mortgage in section 2(5) of the indian stamp act, and article 15 is therefore inapplicable. in ref. case no. 9 of 1908 the the point that the bond in question was a mortgage within the meaning of the definition does not appear to have been taken. in re the district munsif of tiruvallur i.l.r. (1911) mad. 17 the bond, which was given by a judgment-debtor and two sureties does not appear to have been a mortgage bond and consequently came within article 15.
Judgment:

Wallis, C.J.

1. Following the decision in Kulwanta v. Mahabier Prasad I.L.R. (1888) All. 16 (F.B.) . and Ref. case 19 of 1911 we hold that the bond must be stamped both under the Court Fees Act and under Article 40 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act, as it comes within the definition of a mortgage in Section 2(5) of the Indian Stamp Act, and Article 15 is therefore inapplicable. In Ref. case No. 9 of 1908 the the point that the bond in question was a mortgage within the meaning of the definition does not appear to have been taken. In re The District Munsif of Tiruvallur I.L.R. (1911) Mad. 17 the bond, which was given by a judgment-debtor and two sureties does not appear to have been a mortgage bond and consequently came within Article 15.


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