Howes J:

This matter comes before me by way of petition of appeal under s. 237 (1) of the Land Code (Cap. 138).

The arguments have been confined to two main points which were taken before the Collector at the hearing of the application before him. One was that the notice given by the chargee to the charger was defective, in that it did not state the amount due under the charge, as principal and interest. It was alleged that a sum of $103.60 has already been paid as interest under the first charge, or rather, was made to form part of the principal of the second charge which was given in October 1927.

As regards the notice, it follows the form set out in Sch No XXIX to the Land Code, and in that form there is no suggestion there that details of the sums owing should be given. It is a general notice, and the charger is in just as good a position to know how much he owes, as the chargee is to say how much he is claiming. There is nothing untrue in the notice which stated that default had been made by failure to pay the principal and interest thereby secured, even if one payment of interest had been accounted for by inclusion in the second charge.

Mr. Watson objects to the "11 years" mentioned in the notice. In fact, the default had continued for 11 years two months and a certain number of days. Possibly, in future cases it might be wiser to state that the default had continued for over a certain number of years. If it had been "over 11 years" I do not think that this objection could have been raised.

The other part of the notice required the charger to pay the money due and owing within three months from its date. If the charger wished to know the exact amount, he could have enquired. So, I can see no defect in the form of the notice, especially as, once the application comes before the Collector, under s. 142 of the Land Code, it is for the Collector to determine the amount due by the charger before he makes the order of sale. In the case of Ragavaniadoo v. Supramaniam Chetty [1914] 1 FMSLR 139 it was held that under the old Land Enactment, this was the duty of the Collector, in order to ascertain how much land it would be necessary to sell in order to pay the amount due.

The next objection was that the second charge was not at the time of registration properly stamped. This appears from the stamps which were on charge No. 91/27. From the actual charge, it appears that someone thought the proper stamp duty would be $2.50, and it was marked accordingly in pencil. Then, this amount in stamps was affixed in Ipoh with a certificate by the Collector of Land Revenue "stamped in due time." The document was then registered on the 1st of November, only bearing the stamps to the value of $2.50 instead of $3, which was the correct amount which should have been on it. From the document it now appears that a further 50 cents stamp was affixed, and bears the stamp of the Stamp Office dated 5 November 1927.

Mr. Watson for the charger has contended that as the document was not properly stamped it should not have been registered; and suggests that under s. 43 of the Stamp (Amendment) Enactment 1937 the document cannot be registered unless duly stamped. The fact remains that it was registered whether it was duly stamped or not, and it having been passed by the registering authority as being fit for registration once the document is on the register, it can, at this late stage only be impeached on the ground of some error or that the document was insufficient or void. In this case, there is no question of revenue having been defrauded. Someone, we do not know who, put that stamp on. It may have been the Collector of Land Revenue himself, when he realised the mistake. Anyhow, as it is, the document bears in stamps the correct amount of the duty for a charge.

Mr. Seenivasagam for the respondent has quoted a number of cases, especially Indian cases, one of which in particular reported in 23 Calcutta Weekly Notes, p. 534, says that impro