Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : ANANTA NARAYANA AYYAR, BASI REDDI, CHANDRASEKHARA SASTRI, P.JAGMOHAN REDDY
Hazrami Gangaram - Appellant
Versus
Kamlabai - Respondent
Decided On : 12-06-66
STAMP ACT - SECTION 2 (17) - MORTGAGE - INTERPRETATION - KEY LEGAL PROVISIONS, INTERPRETATIONS, AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON THE COURT'S DECISION - LEGAL FRAMEWORK APPLIED BY THE COURT IN REACHING ITS DECISION.
Fact of the Case:
A suit document was executed as a receipt acknowledging a debt and granting possession of a key to the creditor until the debt was repaid. The issue arose whether this document constituted a mortgage within the meaning of Section 2 (17) of the Indian Stamp Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the document was a mortgage-deed as contemplated by Section 2 (17) of the Stamp Act and was chargeable with stamp duty under Art. 35 of the Act.
Issues: Whether the suit document constituted a mortgage within the meaning of Section 2 (17) of the Indian Stamp Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted Section 2 (17) of the Stamp Act and held that a mortgage-deed is defined as an instrument that transfers or creates a right over or in respect of specified property for the purpose of securing a debt. The Court emphasized that the definition of a mortgage-deed under the Stamp Act is distinct from the requirements of a valid mortgage under the Transfer of Property Act. The Court further held that an instrument is chargeable with stamp duty at the time of execution, which is when it is signed, and that no other formality or requirement of law is necessary to make the instrument valid.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the decision of the lower court that the suit document was a mortgage-deed chargeable with stamp duty.
( 1 ) IN view of an apparent conflict between a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Crompton Engineering Co. , (Madras) Ltd. v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Madras, AIR 1953 Mad 764 and a Full Bench of this Court in Midde Varaprasada Rao v. Collector of Krishna, 1959-2 Andh WR 102= (AIR 1959 Andh Pra 650) (FB) on the interpretation of Section 2 (17) of the Indian Stamp Act as to what would constitute a mortgage within the meaning of that section, this case has been directed to be referred by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of one of us namely Basi Reddy, J. and Gopal Rao Ekbote, J. , to a Full Bench of five Judges or more for resolving the conflict.
( 2 ) THE facts in so far as they are relevant for the determination of the question are that the plaintiff had filed a money suit against the defendants for the price of articles supplied to Gande Chinniah, the predecessor-in-interest of the 1st and 2nd defendants for their family needs, which debt he acknowledged by a receipt dated 1-4-1963. This receipt was filed with the plaint, the translation whereof in English is as follows:"agreement executed by Gande Chinniah, son of Linganna, resident of Balkonda, Taluk Armoor, in favour of Hazori Gatifiaram, son of Anthaji, to the effect that from 16-6-1952 to 9-9-1962, principal amount Rs. 1397-7-0. This whole amount in respect of Khalli. For this, I have given the key of my free will. Upon this, there can be no objection by me or by heirs. You can put another lock instead of the present one. After paying whole of the above amount. I shall take my key and letter back. "this document was attested by three witnesses. Evidently on the objections taken by the respondents an issue was raised as to whether this document constituted a mortgage within the meaning of Section 2 (17) of the Stamp Act. The Court-fee Examiner of the High Court in the course of his examination of the documents filed in Court considered that the sale-receipt was a mortgage under Section 2 (17) of the Act. The District Munsif, Armoor, heard the arguments of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties and held that taking into consideration certain circumstances namely that the key of the house was delivered showing that there was delivery of possession that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants had no objection of any kind and that the key would be handed over only on the repayment of the loan the document was a mortgage-deed as contemplated by Section 2 (17) of the Stamp Act and was chargeable with stamp duty under Art. 35 of the Act. The plaintiff was directed to pay Rs. 495 as penalty and stamp duty.
( 3 ) THE question in this revision petition is whether the suit document is a mortgage within the meaning of Section 2 (17) of the Stamp Act. In order to determine this question it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the Stamp Act. It is not denied by Mr. Jeevan Reddy, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, that under the document by whatever name it may be called, possession of specific immovable property was given which possession is to be retained by the plaintiff till the amount of debt due from the executant is discharged. There is little doubt that this document affects the transfer of an interest in immovable property of the value of Rs. 100 or upwards for the purpose of securing a debt and is, therefore, a mortgage within the meaning of Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act. and it would only be valid by executing a registered instrument signed by the mortgagor and attested by at least two witnesses as required under Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act. While this is so. the question is whether this document is a mortgage-deed within the meaning of Section 2 (17) of the Stamp Act which defines it as including "every instrument whereby, for the purpose of securing money advanced, or to be advanced, by way or loan, or an existing or future debt, or the performance of an
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.