In Re Application Of V. Coomarasamy

1916 Present: Ennis J. and Schneider A.J.

In re Application of V. COOMARASAMY, Proctor and Notary Public.
 

Stamp Ordinance, No. 22 of 1909-Settlement-Deed of gift.

A by a deed purported to "make over" four lands to his children in equal shares. The instrument recited that the grant was made as a "deed of distribution of mudusam, known as a deed of settlement." The children of A did not expressly signify their acceptance on the face of the deed.

Held, that the deed was a settlement, and had to be stamped accordingly under article 49 of Schedule B, Part I., of Ordinance No. 22 of 1909.

THE facts are set out in the judgment. The following translation of the deed in question was filed with the petition: -

Deed of Settlement. Rs. 1,500. Lands 4. No. 150.

Know all men by these presents that we, Casynatar Sinnatampy and wife Annapillai, of Yeemankamam, Jaffna, execute and grant deed of distribution of mudusam known as deed of settlement to our children, viz., Sinnatampy Saddanatar, Sinnatampy Gnanasary, pooranam, daughter of Sinnatampy, Parimalam, daughter of Sinnatampy, Pakkyam, daughter of Sinnatampy, and the fetus in the womb of the

second-named person of us, all of the same place, for the hereinbelow described properties, to wit: -

[Land Described.]

The total value being Rs 1'500- the above-described four properties of the said value of One thousand Five hundred Rupees we make over in equal shares to the said Saddanatar, Gnanasary, Pooranarn, Parimalam, Pakkyam, and the fetus in the womb of the second-named person. Hereby declaring that the said lands are not in any manner encumbered or alienated we execute and grant this deed of settlement.

In witness hereof we, the said grantors, set our signature before Ponnampalam Tampinatar, of Tellipallai West, and Sittampary Murukasu, of Yeemankamam, the subscribing witnesses hereto, and before the hereinbelow-named Notary, at the office of the Notary at Tellippaltei, on the 29th November, One thousand Nine hundred and Fifteen.

Signature of C. Sinnatampy.

Mark of Annapillai.

We the witnesses know well the name, residence, and occupation of the grantors.

Witnesses:

Signature of Tampinatar. Signature of S. Murukasu.

Signature of V. Coomaraswamy, Notary Public.

Arulanandan, for petitioner.-By this deed in question the parents distributed their property among their children. The deed is therefore a settlement within the meaning of section 3 (24) of the Stamp Ordinance, 1909. Apart from the fact that the deed is called a settlement on the face of it, the provisions of the deed make it clear that it is a deed of settlement.

The deed has to be stamped under article 49 of the Schedule B, Part I., and not under article 30 as held by the Commissioner of Stamps. At any rate, it cannot be said to be free from doubt whether the deed has to be stamped under article 49 cr under article 30. As the Ordinance imposes a pecuniary burden, o a construction most favourable to the subject should be adopted (Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes 429-430).

Garvin, S.-G., for Crown.-The term " settlement " is not known to our system of law. Under the Roman-Dutch law the deed in question would be a donation, and unless it is accepted it would not amount to a disposition of property. There being no valid disposition of property, the deed does not fall within the definition of term " settlement " in section 3 of the Stamp Ordinance. We cannot look beyond the deed for deciding the character of the deed. In re Chellappa,1[(1916) 19 N. L. R. 116.] Counsel cited 25 Halsbury 226.

Arulanandan, in reply.-The Court need not consider the question whether the deed contains a valid disposition of property for the purpose of stamping of the document.

Cut. adv. vult.

August 29, 1916. ENNIS J.-

This is an application under section 32 of the Stamp Ordinance, Application No. 22 of 1909, by V. Coomaraswamy, Proctor and Notary Pub

Click Here to Read the rest of this document