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

1988 Supreme(Ker) 463

THOMAS
MATHAI MATHEW – Appellant
Versus
THAMPI – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. The simple question in this revision is whether the suit document produced by plaintiff is a bond or agreement. Answer to this question will determine the amount of duty and penalty payable thereon. The plaintiff who produced the document in the trial court called it a promissory note. The defendant wanted it to be treated as a bond. The lower court found that it is only an agreement. Hence, the plaintiff was directed to pay stamp duty and penalty accordingly. This Civil Revision Petition, therefore, has been filed by the defendant in challenge of the order as per which the lower court found that the document is only an agreement.

2. The document is dated 22-11-1983 It is written on a plain paper. It purports to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The bried recitals contained therein read thus: "The amount of Rupees Fourteen thousand which I had received from you shall be repaid immediately (within two months) on completion of the sale of the property allotted to my share". If the document is a bond, the stamp duty payable thereon should have been at the rate specified in Art.23 of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act (for short 'the Act')















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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top