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

1990 Supreme(Ori) 171

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
P.C. Misra, J.
KULAMANI PRADHAN AND ANOTHER - APPELLANT
Versus
GIRIDHARI MOHANTY AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Civil Revision No. 382 of 1990
Decided On : 21-12-1990

Advocates Appeared:
R. Rath, N.C. Rath and S.K. Panda, for the Appellant; Mahadev Misra and S.K. Mohanty, for the Respondent

An adoption deed is chargeable to stamp duty under Art. 3 of the Stamp Act, 1899, as it records a previous adoption and is not merely an acknowledgement of the adoption.

Headnote:

STAMP DUTY - ADOPTION DEED - ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ADOPTION - CHARGABLE TO STAMP DUTY - STAMP ACT, 1899, ART. 3.

Fact of the Case:

In a suit for injunction to restrain defendants from interfering with plaintiff's possession of land, plaintiff claimed to be an adopted son of one Bairagi Mohanty, who executed a sale deed acknowledging the adoption after the adoption took place. The defendants, who were purchasers from the adoptive father's wife, contended that the adoption deed was chargeable to stamp duty and should be impounded as it was not stamped.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the adoption deed was chargeable to stamp duty under Art. 3 of the Stamp Act, 1899, as it recorded a previous adoption and was not merely an acknowledgement of the adoption.

Issues: Whether the adoption deed was chargeable to stamp duty under Art. 3 of the Stamp Act, 1899.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Art. 3 of the Stamp Act, 1899, to mean that any instrument recording an adoption is chargeable to stamp duty. The court reasoned that an adoption deed can only come into existence after an adoption in law has taken place, and that the deed must necessarily record a previous adoption. The court distinguished the case from previous decisions holding that a document recording a previous partition did not require stamp duty, as a partition can be effected by a deed of partition itself.

Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition and set aside the trial court's order that the adoption deed was not chargeable to stamp duty. The court directed that the adoption deed be impounded in order to be admissible in evidence.

JUDGMENT :

P.C. Misra, J. - This revision is directed against an order passed by the Munsif, Kendrapara in Title Suit No. 57 of 1984 in which it was held that document in question which purports to be a deed acknowledging an adoption in favour of the plaintiff is not required to be impounded as it is not chargeable to stamp duty.

2. Defendants 4 and 5 in the aforesaid suit are th,e petitioners in this revision. Opp. party No. 1 as the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from coming upon and interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in respect of Schedule 'Kha' lands and for other consequential reliefs, The plaintiff claims to be an adopted son of one Bairagi Mohanty, 'who has executed the sale deed long after the adoption. It was necessitated as he., (plaintiff's) would be father-in-Law was reluctant to give his daughter in marriage with the plaintiff who had no document in proof of his status as an adopted son. The plaintiff has alleged that defendant -No. 1 is not the wife_ of his adoptive father and as such she had no right, title," interest or possession in the property left behind by his adoptive father. It is, therefore, contended that defendants 2 to 5, who are purchasers from defendant No. 1 have acquired no valid right, title, interest or possession in respect of the suit property and they should, therefore, be restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's possession. At the stage of hearing of the suit, the aforesaid document in question purporting to be a deed acknowledging adoption was sought to be proved on behalf of the plaintiff and the present petitioners moved the trial Court to call upon the plaintiff to pay stamp duty and impound the same since the instrument is chargeable to stamp duty and unless the same in impounded it is inadmissible in evidence. The learned Munsif after hearing both parties in the impugned order came to a conclusion that the document being merely an acknowledgement of the previous adoption is not chargeable to stamp duty and the question of impounding. the same does not arise. Thus the sole question for determination is whether the document is chargeable to stamp duty.

3. Schedule of the Indian Stamp Act specifies the stamp duty payable on different categories of Instruments. Adoption deed has been dealt with under Art. 3. Art. 3 is quoted below for ready reference :

"Art. 3.

Description of Instrument Proper Stamp Duty

3. Adoption-Deed, that is to say, any

instrument (other than a will) recording

an adoption or conferring or purporting Ten Rupees

or purporting to confer an authority to

adopt.

xx xx xx "

The plain language of the Article suggests that any instrument recording an adoption is chargeable to stamp duty. A "record" is a formal writing of any fact which is capable of being reproduced. In a decision reported in AIR I932 Lah 118 (Labh Singh and Ors. v. Mahr Sing and Ors. Justice Jailal explained the word "recording" occurring in Art. 3 of the Stamp Act to mean 'the act of committing to writing as authentic evidence of a matter having legal importance, evidence of which is then preserved and may be put to use in cases of dispute. His Lordship further explained that it is not legally necessary that the matter and the record thereof should be contemporaneous, there may be cases in which a fact is reduced to writing as authentic evidence thereof long after it came into existence. In a separate judgment Justice Harrison expressed that the word "recording" includes not merely the recital of what happens contemporaneously but the recapitulation and placing of a record of what had happened or to happen afterwards. An instrument which records an adoption is chargeable to stamp duty as per Art, 3 of the Stamp Act. The word "recording" has been appropriately used in the said Article as the law prescribes that in order that a valid adoption shall take place, the performance of certain ceremonies including giving and



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 Back to top