The Collector Of Viz... v. Krishna Chandra Khar..., Madras High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Referred Case No. 10 of 1927.

Advocates

The Government Pleader for the Government.
Mr. B. Satyanarayana for the 2nd Respondent (Judgment-debtor).

Judges

Sir Murray Coutts Trotter
Kt., C.J
Ramesam
Pakenham Walsh, JJ.

Acts

Scheduled Districts Act, XIV of 1874 Sect. 3, therefore the Stamp Act
Specific Relief Act, 1877 and the Provincial Insolvency Act.
Sect. 3 (7) of the General Clauses Act, X of 1897.
Art. 45 in the schedule to the Stamp Act.
Scheduled Districts Act of 1874.
LAWS LOCAL EXTENT ACT
Stamp Act, Sect. 2 (15)
INDIAN STAMP ACT

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This reference raises two questions: (1) whether the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 applies to the Agency tracts of Vizagapatam District; and (2) what stamp duty is payable on an award directing partition. An argument was advanced before the Additional District Judge of the Agency that, because there was no notification under Sect. 3 of the Scheduled Districts Act, XIV of 1874, the Stamp Act does not apply to the Agency tracts. The matter further required calculation of duty on an award that divides property valued at Rs. 80,000 into four shares (one share double each of the other three).

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 applies to the Agency tracts of Vizagapatam District.
What stamp duty is payable on the award directing partition of the property valued at Rs. 80,000.

Arguments of the Parties

Argument before the Additional District Judge

The contention advanced was that in absence of a notification under Sect. 3 of the Scheduled Districts Act, XIV of 1874, the Stamp Act does not apply to the Agency tracts.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Chakrapani v. Varahalamma(1)	Support for the proposition that the Stamp Act applies to the Agency tracts.	Invoked to confirm that the Stamp Act extends to the Agency tracts and therefore applies in the present case.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the matter in two parts:

Applicability of the Stamp Act:
- The Stamp Act purports to apply to the whole of British India.
- Sect. 3(7) of the General Clauses Act was cited as establishing that "British India" includes the Agency tracts of Vizagapatam District.
- The court explained that the Scheduled Districts Act of 1874 was intended to remove doubts about applicability of Acts passed prior to 1874 and provides for notifications under Sect. 3(a) or 3(b) to declare the force of earlier Acts; it does not govern Acts of the Indian Legislature passed after 1874 which expressly state their local extent.
- Given the Stamp Act expressly extends to the whole of British India, the court concluded it applies to the Agency tracts, noting that Chakrapani v. Varahalamma supports this point.
Stamp duty payable on the award:
- Sect. 2(15) of the Stamp Act defines an instrument of partition as including an award directing partition; thus the award is governed by Art. 45 of the schedule to the Stamp Act.
- Art. 45 fixes duty as that on a bond for the amount of the value of the separated share(s); a note deems the largest share remaining after partition to be that from which others are separated.
- On the facts the property value is Rs. 80,000 divided into four shares where one share is double each of the other three; the largest share is two-fifths (Rs. 32,000) and the separated shares total Rs. 48,000.
- Under Art. 15 the duty for a bond of Rs. 48,000 is Rs. 240; the court held this to be the proper stamp duty on the award.
- Because of existing uncertainty about the law applicable to the Agency tracts, the court declined to impose a penalty; instead it required the claimant relying on the award to pay the stamp duty and indicated the document should be given effect if otherwise valid. No order as to costs was made.

Holding and Implications

The court held that the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 applies to the Agency tracts and that the proper stamp duty payable on the award is Rs. 240.

Consequences: The claimant who relies on the award must pay the stamp duty of Rs. 240; no penalty was imposed; the document is to be given effect if otherwise valid; no order as to costs. The opinion does not state any broader precedent beyond these determinations.

Show full summary ...

The Collector Of Vizagapatam Referring Officer. v. Krishna Chandra Kharasudha Patnaik And Others. Claim Petitioners.

The first question arising in this reference is whether the Indian Stamp Act of 1899 applies to the Agency tracts. The Act itself purports to apply to the whole of British India and there is no doubt that ‘British India’ includes the Agency tracts of Vizagapatam District. See Sect. 3 (7) of the General Clauses Act, X of 1897. The argument before the Additional District Judge of the Agency seems to be that because there was no notification under the Scheduled Districts Act, XIV of 1874 Sect. 3, therefore the Stamp Act does not apply to the Agency tracts. But this argument seems to rest on a misunderstanding of the object and scope of the Scheduled Districts Act of 1874. The object of that Act was to remove doubts regarding the applicability of Acts of the Indian Legislature prior to that date and they were sought to be removed generally by the Laws Local Extent Act and secondly by notifications either under Sect. 3 (a) or 3 (b) of the Act, either declaring certain Acts to be in force or declaring certain Acts not to be in force. But the Scheduled Districts Act does not apply to Acts of the Indian Legislature passed after that Act which are very clear as to the local extent. The practice since 1874 has been for an Act to say that the Act applies to the whole of British India or it applies to the whole of British India excluding the scheduled districts as the case may be. There are examples of several Acts in which the Acts are said to apply to the whole of British India excepting the scheduled districts, for example, the Specific Relief Act, 1877 and the Provincial Insolvency Act. In the case of the Stamp Act it extends to the whole of British India and there is no doubt as to its applicability to the Agency tracts. The decision in Chakrapani v. Varahalamma(1) also makes this point clear.

The second question arising in this reference is what is the stamp duty payable on the award before us. The Stamp Act, Sect. 2 (15) defines an instrument of partition as including an award directing a partition. The award therefore in this case is governed by Art. 45 in the schedule to the Stamp Act. The duty payable according to the second column of that Article is the stamp duty as on a bond for the amount of the value of a separated share or shares of the property. Then a note explains that the largest share remaining after the property is partitioned shall be deemed to be that from which the other shares are separated. Here the whole property dealt with by the award is divided into four shares, one of the shares being in the proportion of two to each of the other three shares. The largest share after the property is partitioned is this share which is double the value of the other shares. The value of the property being Rs. 80,000 the value of two-fifths of it which is the property from which the others' shares are deemed to be separated is Rs. 32,000 and the stamp duty payable on the award is as on a bond for Rs. 48,000 which is the value of the separated shares. Under Art, 15 the duty for a bond of Rs. 48,000 is Rs. 240. This, we hold, is the proper stamp duty payable on the award. Having regard to the uncertainty existing as to the law applicable to the Agency tracts, we do not think this a proper case in which the penalty ought to be levied. The Court having acted upon this document, it is enough in the interests of justice to require the claimant who is relying on the award to pay the stamp duty itself and to give effect to the document if the document is otherwise found valid. We make no order as to costs.

N.R.R

The Collector Of Viz... v. Krishna Chandra Khar...