JUDGMENT - Chagla, C.J.

[1] The question that arises for our determination on this reference made by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Section 57, Stamp Act is a very short one. On 24 8-1948, on agreement for lease was entered into between the Trustees of the Port of Bombay and one Anandji Haridas. Pursuant to this agreement, a lease was executed on 19.4 1949. It is common ground that the agreement for lease of 24 .8.1948, did not effect a present demise. The agreement to lease was stamped ad valorem under Article 35, Stamp Act, and the lease of 19-4-1949 was stamped only with annas 12. The question that we have to consider is whether the document of 19-4-1919, was properly stamped.

[2] It is not necessary to consider on this reference a certain fact which has been mentioned in the opinion of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, because there is no dispute between the parties with regard to it, namely, that a certain sum was deposited by Anandji Haridas with the Trustees of the Port of Bombay for the due performance of various obligations under, taken by him, under the lease.

[3] Now, in order to appreciate the rival contentions put before us, it is important to look a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document