HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
S. C. LAHIRI, R. S. BACHAWAT, P. N. MUKHERJEE
COMMISSIONERS FOR THE PORT OF CALCUTTA - Appellant
Versus
BHAIRADINRAM DURGA PROSAD - Respondent
Full Bench Ref. 1 Of 1951 In S. A. No. 1941 Of 1947
Decided On : JULY 19, 1960
STAMP ACT - LEASE - MONTHLY TENANCY - STAMP DUTY - SUFFICIENCY - INDIAN STAMP ACT, 1899, ARTS. 35 (A) (I), 35 (A) (VIII) - BENGAL ACT III OF 1922.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a lessor, sued the respondent, a lessee, for ejectment. The lease was executed on April 7, 1937, for a period of two months from April 10, 1937, and thereafter on a monthly tenancy. The lease was stamped with a stamp duty of twelve annas under Article 35 Clause (a) (i) of the Indian Stamp Act. The respondent objected to the sufficiency of the stamp, contending that it should be stamped under Article 35 (a) (viii) of the Indian Stamp Act. The Trial Court overruled the objection and admitted the lease into evidence. The Appellate Court upheld the objection but held that it had no power to question the admissibility of the document since it had been admitted by the Trial Court. The appellant filed a second appeal challenging the Appellate Court's view on the sufficiency of the stamp and the legality of the direction for realizing stamp duty and penalty.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the direction given by the Appellate Court to its office to give necessary intimation to the Collector for the realization of stamp duty and penalty was without jurisdiction and set it aside in exercise of its revisional powers. The Court further held that the questions referred to the Full Bench did not arise for consideration and need not be answered.
Issues: 1. Whether a lease which creates a monthly tenancy simpliciter, terminable by a notice to quit, is governed by Article 35 (a) (i) or Article 35 (a) (viii) of the Indian Stamp Act as amended by Bengal Act III of 1922? 2. Whether the case of Amolia, 23 Cal. W. N. 398: (AIR 1919 Cal. 200 (1)) was correctly decided?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the questions referred to the Full Bench did not arise for consideration and need not be answered since the direction given by the Appellate Court to its office to give necessary intimation to the Collector for the realization of stamp duty and penalty was without jurisdiction and was set aside in exercise of the Court's revisional powers. 2. The Court held that the direction given by the Appellate Court to its office to give necessary intimation to the Collector for the realization of stamp duty and penalty was without jurisdiction and set it aside in exercise of its revisional powers.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, but the direction given by the Court of appeal below upon its office was set aside in exercise of the Court's revisional powers.
( 1 ) THIS reference arises out of a second appeal filed by the plaintiff against a decree made by the Second Court of Subordinate Judge, Alipore, affirming a decree for ejectment against the respondent. The respondent was a lessee under the appellant under an indenture of lease dated April 7, 1937. Under the terms of that indenture the lessors agreed to let and the lessee agreed to take on lease for a period of two months from April 10, 1937 and thereafter subject to the conditions mentioned in the lease on a monthly tenancy, agreeing to pay monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 11/14/- (Rupees eleven and annas fourteen) only. That tenancy was terminated by the appellant by a notice to quit and on tha expiry of the period of notice the appellant sued the defendant-respondent for ejectment and obtained a decree in that suit. In this suit the lease executed between the parties was produced and marked as Exhibit 1. The indenture was stamped with a stamp duty of twelve annas under Article 35 Clause (a) (i) of the Indian Stamp Act. In the Trial Court the defendant raised an objection as to the sufficiency of the stamp paid on the indenture of lease but that objection was overruled by the Trial Court on the authority of the decision of this Court in the case of A. M. Amolia v. Ibrahim Ishak, 23 Cal. W. N. 398: (AIR 1919 Cal 200 (I)) decided by Sanderson, C. J. and Woodroffe, J. After overruling the objection as to the sufficiency of stamp the Trial Court admitted the lease into evidence and marked it as Exhibit 1. The defendant took an appeal against the decree of the Trial Court and in the Appellate Court the defendant raised a similar objection as to the sufficiency of stamp affixed to the lease and contended that the lease should be stamped under Article 35 (a) (viii) of the Indian Stamp Act. The Appellate Court without referring to tha decision in Amelia's case in 23 Cal. W. N. 398 : (AIR 1919 Cal 200 (1)) accepted the defendant's contention but in view of the provisions of sec. 38 o the Indian Stamp Act read with the ruling in the case of Bhupati Nath Chakravarty v. Basanta Kumari Devi, AIR 1936 Cal. 556, came to the conclusion that it had no power to question the admissibility of the document in view of the fact that it had been rightly or wrongly admitted by the Trial Court. Nevertheless the Appellate Court observed as follows:"the matter of realisation of the stamp duty penalty also now lies with the Collector, as I find from the aforesaid ruling, Office to do the needful and send necessary intimation to the Collector. "in the end, however, the Appellate Court affirmed the decree for ejectment made by the Court of first instance in favour of the appellant. Against this decree of the lower appellate Court, the appellant filed a second appeal for the purpose of challenging the view expressed by the lower appellate Court as to the sufficiency of stamp paid upon the indenture of lease and also the legality of the direction given by the lower appellate Court for the purpose of realising stamp duty and penalty.
( 2 ) WHEN the appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench consisting of My Lord P. N. Mookerjee, J. and myself, we thought that the decision in the case of Amolia, 23 Cal. W. N. 398: (AIR 1919 Cal 200 (1)) was not correct and we referred two questions for decision by a Full Bench. Those questions are:-- (a) Whether a lease which creates a monthly tenancy simpliciter, terminable by a notice to quit, is governed by Article 35 (a) (i) or Article 35 (a) (viii) of the Indian Stamp Act as amended by Bengal Act III of 1922; and (b) Whether the case of 23 Cal. W. N. 398: (AIR 1919 Cal. 200 (1)) was correctly decided. As the questions arose in second appeal, the Division Bench referred the whole case for the decision of the Full Bench.
( 3 ) AFTER hearing Dr. Gupta in support of the appeal at considerable length, I have reached the conclusion that the questions which have been referred to the Full Bench do not re
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.