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

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.

JUDGMENT

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.

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top