K R MALLESHA Vs. RAMNATH GAJANAND
LAWS(APH)-1972-3-7
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 20,1972

K.R.MALLESHA Appellant
VERSUS
RAMNATH GAJANAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The petitioner is the defendant . The Civil Revision Petition raises a question of construction regarding a certain agreement and also a receipt and the admissibility of those documents and the stamp duty payable in respect of those documents.
(2.) The relevant facts are that the plaintiff and the defendant ran a tea stall business under the name and style of "Ramnath Tea stall". There is a deed of partnership dated 6-4-1967. This partnership was shortlived and on 5-6-1968 the plaintiff took a sum off Rs. 10,000.00 from the defendant and had retired from the partnership on that day : there was what is called an agreement executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. On the same day there was a receipt for Rs. 10,000.00 also passed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant acknowledging the receipt for Rs. 10,000.00. The plaitiff has filed the present suit for dissolution of partnership.
(3.) After the trial commenced, the defendant had sought to put in evidence both the agreement and the receipt. It was objected to by the respondent on the ground that the agreement dated 5-4-1968 was a conveyance in the eye of law and that it was not a mere deed of dissolution and that it also required registration under Section 17 (1) (d) of the Registration Act. So far as the receipt was concerned, its admissibility also was questioned on the ground that the stamp duty of 10 np. paid on the document was not sufficient. The court below pronounced an order on 18-11-1972 holding that neither the agreement nor the receipt was compulsorily registrable under Section 17 (1) (d) of the Registration Act. But it was held by that Court that the agreement amounted to a conveyance and has to be stamped as such, under Section 2 (10) of the stamp Act. It was contended by the petitioner that it was merely a deed of dissolution of partnership and he need only pay a penalty on the deficit stamp duty. It may be noticed that the agreement was only on four stamps of the value of Rs. 2-50. So far as the receipt was concerned, it was found by the Court that the revenue stamp of 10 np. affixed was sufficient and that it did not require any further stamp only in case the agreement is stamped as a conveyance under Art. 23 of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act.;


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