1917 Supreme(Mad) 350
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
J Wallis, Kt., Ayling, K Sastriyar
Palakkunnath Illath Govindan
Versus
Ottathayil Moidin
Decided On : 11 October, 1917
A marupat is considered a counterpart of lease or a deed executed by a tenant promising certain rent, and it must be stamped both as a counterpart and as a mortgage.
Headnote:
marupat - lease - A marupat is a counterpart of lease or a deed executed by a tenant promising certain rent--Moores Malabar Law. We think it must be stamped both as a counterpart and as a mortgage.
Fact of the Case:
The court considered the nature of a marupat and the stamp duty requirements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that a marupat should be stamped both as a counterpart and as a mortgage.
Issues: Interpretation of the nature of a marupat and the stamp duty requirements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Moores Malabar Law and the requirement for stamping a marupat as both a counterpart and a mortgage.
Final Decision: The court decided that a marupat must be stamped both as a counterpart and as a mortgage.
1. A marupat is a counterpart of lease or a deed executed by a tenant promising certain rent--Moores Malabar Law.
2. We think it must be stamped both as a counterpart and as a mortgage.