Skip to content


Raman Chetty Vs. Nagappa Chetty - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916Mad672; 31Ind.Cas.285
AppellantRaman Chetty
RespondentNagappa Chetty
Excerpt:
stamp act (ii of 1899), section 44, scope of - stamp duty and penalty--joint-executants--contribution. - 1. we think that section 44 of the stamp act was intended to give a right to an innocent party, who himself was not guilty of any default in the matter of the proper stamping of a document, to recover the duty or penalty he was obliged to pay, from the person or persons guilty of the default and that it was not intended to enable one of several persons, who were under a common duty to pay the proper stamp in proportionate shares, to claim recovery of the proportionate amount of the duty or penalty the whole of which he was afterwards obliged to pay owing to the common default. in this view, it is unnecessary to consider the question of limitation, and we dismiss the letters patent appeal with costs.
Judgment:

1. We think that Section 44 of the Stamp Act was intended to give a right to an innocent party, who himself was not guilty of any default in the matter of the proper stamping of a document, to recover the duty or penalty he was obliged to pay, from the person or persons guilty of the default and that it was not intended to enable one of several persons, who were under a common duty to pay the proper stamp in proportionate shares, to claim recovery of the proportionate amount of the duty or penalty the whole of which he was afterwards obliged to pay owing to the common default. In this view, it is unnecessary to consider the question of limitation, and we dismiss the Letters Patent Appeal with costs.


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