Decided on October 31,1963

BAI PARVATI Respondents


V.B.RAJU - (1.) IN respect of a document consisting of various terms the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division Ahmedabad held that the document except one part which contained a recital of a receipt for the payment of Rs. 3500/cannot be admitted in evidence. The Contention urged in the cross-objections is that even this part of the document should have been held inadmissible in evidence. The learned counsel for the respondent relies on sections 5 6 and 35 of the INdian Stamp Act and Mantappa Nadgowda v. Baswant Rao Nadgowda 14 Moores indian Appeals 24 The learned counsel concedes that that case did not refer to a document which contained a recital in respect of a receipt for payment of money. That case is therefore inappropriate and will not be referred to. Sections 5 and 6 of the INdian Stamp Act deal with the stamp payable on an instrument. Section 6 deals with the stamp payable on instruments coming within several descriptions in Schedule 1.Section 5 deals with instruments relating to several distinct matters. these sections provide as follows:-- Section 6. Any instrument comprising or relating to several distinct matters shall be chargeable with the aggregate amount of the duties with which separate instruments each comprising or relating to one of such matters would be chargeable under this Act. Section 6. Subject to the provisions of the last preceding section an instrument so framed as to come within two or more of the descriptions in Schedule shall where the duties chargeable there under are different be chargeable only with the highest of such duties:- Provided that nothing in this Act contained shall render chargeable with duty exceeding one rupee a counterpart or duplicate of any instrument chargeable with duty and in respect of which the proper duty has been paid. Section 35 of the INdian Stamp Act reads as follows:-- No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence or shall be acted upon. registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer unless such instrument is duly stamped:- The rest of the section consisting of a proviso is not material for the purpose of deciding the question involved.
(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel is that as the instrument relates to several distinct matters the duty payable is the total amount of duty payable on each matter and that as the instrument does not bear the requisite duty the whole instrument should be disallowed under section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. But when a document or instrument contains several distinct matters it should be regarded not as one document but as several documents or several instruments. When a transaction refers to several distinct matters several documents can be executed in respect of those several matters but for convenience can be executed. Although for convenience one document is executed it should be treated as several documents and section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act has to be applied to every one of those several instruments. It is true that when a document relates to several items of immovable properties and it does not bear a stamp chargeable in respect of all the properties it cannot be admitted in evidence in respect of some of the properties. A document which relates to a transaction relating to five distinct properties cannot be regarded as five documents relating to each of the five properties. But a document which relates to a mortgage of five properties and a receipt for the payment of Rs. 3500/can be regarded as two instruments one relating to a mortgage of immoveable properties and the second relating to the payment of Rs. 3500 In the instant case the document can be regarded as separate instruments relating to separate matter dealt with in the document and one such matter is the matter relating to a receipt for the payment of Rs. 3500.00. When the document is regarded as several instruments all the instruments except one may be admissible in evidence in view of the provisions of section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. But the instrument relating to the receipt for the payment of money namely Rs. 3500/would not be inadmissible because it bears the requisite stamp.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.