IN RE: BODY NAIKA AND BEST AND CO Vs. STATE
LAWS(PVC)-1900-9-1
PRIVY COUNCIL
Decided on September 27,1900

IN RE: BODY NAIKA AND BEST AND CO Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The principal question referred to us for decision is whether the instrument presented to the Collector comprises or relates to several distinct matters so as to be chargeable accordingly under Section 5 of the Indian Stamp Act, The instrument is not complete, inasmuch as only one land-holder is named, whereas the case shows, and it is admitted by counsel on behalf of Messrs, Best & Co., that the intention is to have it executed by several land-holders, each generally interested in the piece of land mentioned against his name in the schedule.
(2.) This mere statement of the facts is almost sufficient to show that the instrument is chargeable with the aggregate amount of the duties with which separate instruments, relating to the same matters would be chargeable, for it is plain that agreements with two or more ryots not jointly interested in the same land for the purchase or lease of their lands, are distinct agreements which may give rise to different rights of action by or against the several ryots. It was argued, however, on the strength of some English cases, that there is a community of interest between the several landholders of a village who, as it is proposed, are to be made parties and that therefore only one stamp is required. The Strongest case cited was Doe d Croft V/s. Tibdury (1854), 14 C.B. 320, where it was held that a deed executed by several encroachers in respect of their several encroachments did not need to be impressed with several stamps. In effect it was considered that therefore the parties conveying joined in conveying all the encroachments a community of interests was established between them as to the same subject-matter. In Wills V/s. Bridge L.R. 6 Exch. 106, there was a deed of transfer executed by 3 persons jointly in respect of 60 shares in a Company, of which 30 shares belonged to 1 person, 20 to another, and 10 to the 3rd.
(3.) It was held that although the deed conveyed the separate interests of three persons, three stamps were not required. Wills V/s. Bridge (1854), 14 C.B. 320 is cited by Kelly, C.B., with apparent approval in Freeman V/s. Commissioners of Inland Revenue L.R. 6 Exch. 106.;


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