Skip to content


Dhirendra Nath Poddar and ors. Vs. Hemangini Dasi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1935Cal610,158Ind.Cas.406
AppellantDhirendra Nath Poddar and ors.
RespondentHemangini Dasi and ors.
Cases ReferredAmirthammal v. Maddalakarun
Excerpt:
- .....a receiver was appointed by this court and according to the directions given he filed the security bond stamping it with a stamp of rs. 7/8. after the document had been filed in office the assistant registrar on a note from mr. ram taran chatterjee felt doubtful whether this particular instrument should come under article 57, stamp act. if article 57 does apply to the security bond the stamp paid seems to be sufficient. on the other hand mr. mohini nath bose, the stamp reporter, was of opinion that the stamp was insufficient and he relied on the decision of the full bench of the madras. high court in amirthammal v. maddalakarun, 1920 mad 939, which held that when a receiver is appointed and furnishes security in immovable property he is to stamp it as mortgage under article 40, schedule.....
Judgment:

D.N. Mitter, J.

1. This is a matter relating to the sufficiency of the stamp with reference to the security bond which we directed should be executed by the Receiver for a sum of Rs. 10,000(Rupees ten thousand) in a certain appeal from original decree. A Receiver was appointed by this Court and according to the directions given he filed the security bond stamping it with a stamp of Rs. 7/8. After the document had been filed in office the Assistant Registrar on a note from Mr. Ram Taran Chatterjee felt doubtful whether this particular instrument should come under Article 57, Stamp Act. If Article 57 does apply to the security bond the stamp paid seems to be sufficient. On the other hand Mr. Mohini Nath Bose, the Stamp Reporter, was of opinion that the stamp was insufficient and he relied on the decision of the Full Bench of the Madras. High Court in Amirthammal v. Maddalakarun, 1920 Mad 939, which held that when a Receiver is appointed and furnishes security in immovable property he is to stamp it as mortgage under Article 40, Schedule 1, Stamp Act. It was stated that under the Stamp Act, there is no distinction between moveable and immovable properties with reference to the definition of the mortgage deed in Section 2(5), Stamp Act. The Madras Pull Bench in terms related to a case where the mortgage deed comprised immovable property. It has been said however on behalf of the Receiver that the proper article applicable to this case is Article 57. Article 57, Stamp Act, runs as follows:

Security bond or mortgage deed executed by way of security for the due execution of an office, or to account for money or other property received by virtue thereof or executed by a surety to secure the due performance of a contract (a) when the amount secured does not exceed Rs. 1,000 the same duty as a Bond for the amount secured and (b) in any other case rupees five

(Rs. 7/8) as now amended. There can be no question that the security bond and the bond pledging Government securities of the value of Rs. 10,000 was executed by way of security for the due execution of the office of the Receiver. It is contended however by the Senior Government Pleader, whose assistance was required in the present case as the matter concerns Government revenue, that in so far as a Receiver is concerned Article 57, Stamp Act, does apply. But as the sureties have also joined in the bond Article 40 applies also for 'according to the contention of the Senior Government Pleader the case of a surety is not contemplated by Article 57. We are unable to agree in this contention. The language of Article 57 as appears in the opening lines of the Article, 'Security bond or Mortgage deed executed by way of security for the due execution of an office...' does not suggest that the execution of the deed must be restricted to the case of the officer in question. On the other hand the words there are wide enough to cover the case not only of the officer in question but also of the sureties who executed the security deed for the due execution of the office by the Receiver. That this is the correct view would appear from an examination of the exemption clause in Article 57, namely, exemption (e). That exemption runs as, follows:

executed by officers of Government or their sureties to secure the due execution of an office or the due accounting for money or other property received by virtue thereof.

2. The exemption covers the case of officers of Government or their sureties. The original section cannot be read in any narrower sense than the exemption. The exemption in the case of officers of Government suggests that the original Article was intended to cover the case of the officer in question as well as his surety or sureties. We are therefore of opinion that the document in question was properly stamped. The matter has really come before us under Section 33, Stamp Act. It appears that the High Court has not yet delegated its power of examining and impounding any instrument under this section to any officer of the Court. Consequently having regard to Section 33(1) and proviso (b) to Section 33(2) we are entitled to see if it is properly stamped. In our view it is properly stamped. On an examination of the relevant provision of the Stamp Act we think that the document is properly stamped and that Article 57 applies to the case.

Rau, J.

3. I agree.


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