SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1962 Supreme(AP) 193

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : GOPALRAO EKBOLE, NARASIMHAM, P.CHANDRA REDDY
Bharpet Mohd.Hussain Saheb - Appellant
Versus
District Registrar, Kurnool - Respondent
Decided On : 10-29-62

The classification of documents for stamp duty purposes is governed by the form adopted by the parties and not the substance of the matter. The court cannot enter into the spirit of the law or read a number of documents together to determine the nature of the transaction.

Headnote:

STAMP DUTY - CLASSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS - SIMPLE MORTGAGE AND MANAGING AGENCY AGREEMENT - STAMP DUTY PAYABLE ON EACH DOCUMENT - PRINCIPLES GOVERNING CLASSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved two documents: a simple mortgage deed and an agreement appointing an agent to manage a ginning and pressing factory. The question before the court was whether the two documents together constituted a usufructuary mortgage chargeable to duty under Article 33(a) of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act or whether they were separate instruments subject to different stamp duties.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the two documents were separate instruments and that the stamp duty paid on each document was proper. The court found that the mortgage deed was a simple mortgage falling within the connotation of Article 33(a) of Schedule 1-A to the Indian Stamp Act and that the agreement was an instrument attracting Article 6 of the same Schedule as applicable to Andhra Pradesh State.

Issues: 1. What is the correct classification of the two documents? 2. What is the correct stamp duty on each document?

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the following principles in reaching its decision: * The court cannot enter into the spirit of the law for the purpose of deciding whether a document falls within the ambit of a particular article of the Stamp Act. It is the form adopted by the parties and not the substance of the matter that is relevant. * The court cannot read a number of documents to see if a particular transaction is spread over all these instruments. It has to take into account the nature of the document that is sought to be taxed. * It is only the instrument that is presented for registration that should be charged with stamp-duty. The authorities cannot look into the various documents that are connected with it with a view to judge the nature of the transaction that is covered by this document read in conjunction with several others.

Final Decision: The court answered the two questions referred to it by the Board of Revenue as follows: 1. The correct classification of the two documents is: (a) the document dated 6/06/1958 is a simple mortgage falling within the connotation of Article 33(a) of Schedule 1-A to the Indian Stamp Act; and (b) the document dated 8th June 1558, is an instrument attracting Article 6 of the same Schedule as applicable to Andhra Pradesh State. 2. The correct stamp duty on each document is: (a) Rs. 1,500.00 on the document dated 6/06/1958; and (b) Rs. 37-50 Np. on the document dated 8th June 1558.

CHANDRA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE questions referred to this Court for its opinion under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act by the Board of Revenue (Chief Controlling Revenue Authority) are these: 1. What is the correct classification of the two documents? 2. What is the correct stamp duty on each document

( 2 ) THE facts, which have given rise to this controversy arising in this enquiry, are shortly these. Applicant No. 1 executed a deed of simple mortgage for Rs. 1,00,000 (one lakh) on 6/06/1958 in favour of the Andhra Cotton Company, Secunderabad, paying a stamp duty of Rs. 1,500. 00, Two days thereafter, an agreement was executed by applicant No. 1 in favour of applicant No. 2 appointing the latter as his agent for managing the Ginning and Pressing Factory situated at Adoni, Kurnool District, engrossing this document on a stamp paper of Rs. 37-50 Np. , under Article 6, Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act. When this document was presented for registration, as the Registration Department had a doubt as to whether this instrument was really governed by Article 6 or whether this document together with the mortgage of 6/06/1958 would constitute a usufructuary mortgage chargeable to duty under Article 33 (a) of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act, it referred the matter to the Board of Revenue, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority.

( 3 ) THE Board of Revenue was inclined to the view that the two documents together constitute a deed of mortgage with possession. However, the Board submitted the case under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act for the decision of this Court.

( 4 ) IT is not disputed that proper stamp duty was paid on the document dated 6/06/1958 and it is not also contested that the stamp duty paid on the second document is proper if it is treated as agency agreement In order to judge whether the two documents read together evidence a transaction of a usufructuary mortgage, we shall look at the terms of the documents which have a bearing, on this enquiry.

( 5 ) UNDER the document dated 6/06/1958, interest was to be paid at the rate of twelve per cent per annum annually as it became due and if the accrued interest for any year was not paid on the due date, the mortgagee was entitled to call for payment of the entire principal together with the outstanding interest. Coming now to the second document, i. e. , the agreement, apart from the usual terms contained in the managing agency agreements, it was stipulated between the parties that the arrangement would be in force for a period of ten years with the option for its renewal for another period of ten years, even if the mort gage was discharged. It is also significant that there is no provision in the agreement dated 8/06/1958 en abling the agent to appropriate any part of the income towards the mortgage. Under Clause 4, he is required to keep regular accounts of the expenses incurred for working the factory and the income derived from the ginning and pressing section. The agreement contemplated payment of commission at the rate of Re. 1/- per naga of of cotton ginned and also at the rate of Re. 1/- per bale of cotton pressed in lieu of the services rendered by him, as a managing agent.

( 6 ) IT Is seen that none of the essentials of a usutructuary mortgage is present either in the later document or even in both the instruments taken together. The essence of a usufructuary mortgage is that the mortgaged wilt be authorised to retain possession until payment of mortgage-money to receive the rents and profits accruing from the property or any part of such rents and profits and to appropriate the same in lieu of interest or in payment of the mortgage-money, or partly in lieu of interest, or partly in payment of the mortgage-money. As we have already mentioned, under the document of 8/06/1958, the agent is not authorised to adjust any part of the income towards interest or towards payment of the mortgage-money or partly in lieu of interest or partly in payment of the mortgage-











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top