Back
SATHASIVAM v. VAITHIANATHAN
NLR24V94
1922
Present: Bertram C, J.
and Schneider J.
SATHASIVAM v. VAITHIANATHAN.
D. C. Colombo, 2,002.
stamp duty -Actions under the
Trusts Ordinance, 1917-Interpretation Ordinance, No. 21 of 1901, s. 10.
Actions relating to public trusts under the Trusts Ordinance, 1917, are liable
to stamp duty as actions of the value of Rs. 1,000.
Subsection 8 of section 116 of the Trusts Ordinance which enacts that all
petitions shall bear a stamp of Rs. 10 was designed to provide for proceedings
of a special nature by petitions under sections 35, 74., and 76, and other
sections of the Trusts Ordinance.
THE
facts appear from the judgment.
Arulanadan (with him Retnam), for defendants, appellants.- Section 116 (3) of
the Trust Ordinance provides that petitions under the Ordinance should bear a
stamp of Rs. 10. There is no other provision either in the Trust Ordinance or in
the Stamp Ordinance which requires proceedings to be stamped, nor are they
specially exempted. It has been the practice not to stamp such proceedings. But
section 116 (1) of the Trust Ordinance enacts that all proceedings under the
Ordinance shall be governed by the enactments and rules relating to civil
procedure for the time being in force which requires plaints and all
proceedings, unless specially exempted to be stamped.
If, therefore, these proceedings should be stamped, they would come under the
miscellaneous class in the schedule to the Stamp Ordinance. The latter provides
that actions relating to public charities under chapter 45 of the Civil
Procedure Code shall be charged as of the value of Rs. 1,000. That this chapter
was repealed by the Trust Ordinance was lost sight of when the schedule to the
Stamp Ordinance was repealed in 1919. This difficulty is cleared by the
application of section 10 of the Interpretation
Ordinance.
Keuneman (with him Spencer Rajaratnam), for plaintiffs, respondents,
September 15, 1922. BERTRAM C.J.-
This case has been brought before us by the Registrar, because, on the appeal
being presented to this Court, it was found that the proceedings were unstamped,
the learned Judge in the Court below
apparently being of opinion that
actions relating to public trusts were not liable to stamp duty. This is said to
be the practice, but it is clearly an erroneous practice. It is said to be based
upon section 116 of the Trusts Ordinance, No, 9 of 1917, which enacts in
sub-section 3 that all petitions presented in any Court in any proceedings under
this Ordinance shall bear a stamp of Rs, 10, This special provision with, regard
to petitions under the Trusts Ordinance does not affect other documents liable
to stamp duty. They are governed by the first sub-section of section 116 which
says that the enactments and rules relating to civil procedure, at the time
being in force, shall apply to them. These words bring into operation the
general provisions of the Stamp Ordinance with regard to legal proceedings.
Sub-section 3 was a special enactment designed to provide for proceedings of a
special nature by petitions under sections 35, 74, and 76, and other sections of
the Trusts, Ordinance. It was, no doubt, modelled on section 11 of the Entail
and Settlement Ordinance of 1876, which, in so far as it relates to trusts, was
repealed by the Trusts Ordinance. The proceedings, therefore, must be stamped
like any other proceedings.
Mr. Arulanandan, however, raises another point, namely, on what scale are they
to be stamped, and contends, I think rightly, that they must be stamped as
belonging to the miscellaneous class. The law on this question is as follows :
Our old Stamp Ordinance, No. 22 of 1909, provided in the schedule that actions
relating to public charities under chapter 45 of the Civil Procedure Code shall
be charged as of the value of Rs. 1,000. Chapter 45 of the Civil Procedure Code
was repealed and re-enacted in very large form by certain sections of chapter 10
o
