BALAKRISHNA AYYAR, HORWILL, VISWANATHA SASTRI
The Joint Secretary, Board of Revenue, Madras – Appellant
Versus
K. R. Venkatarama Ayyar – Respondent
It is conceded that the document contains terms which make it a settlement deed and that for purposes of stamp duty it should be treated as such. Under Article 58 of the Stamp Act (Schedule I) the duty is to be the same as for a bond for a sum equal to the amount or “value of the property settled as set forth in such settlement.” The real value of the property is admitted by the settlor to be Rs. 2 lakhs; and since it is subject to a mortgage of one lakh of rupees, the value of the equity of redemption would be at least one lakh of rupees. The revenue authorities value it at Rs. 1,59,300. The settlor did not in so many terms purport to give the real value of the property; because if he gave a false value, he would be liable to prosecution. So he tried to guard himself by saying, “Value for purposes of stamp and registration, Rs. 3,000”. He argued before the Revenue authorities, as he did here, that he was entitled to put any notional value on the property. Since however it was clear from the
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.