Sinnappoo V. Theivanai Et Al.,

1937   Present: Poyser S.P.J. and Soertsz J.

SINNAPPOO v. THEIVANAI et al.

 15-D. C. Jaffna, 7,163.

Stamp duty-Value of an action-Certificate of decree in appeal-Failure to tender correct amount-fatal irregularity-Stamp Ordinance, Schedule B, Part 11.

The value of an action for the purpose of fixing the stamp duty on the proceedings under Part II., Schedule B, of the Stamp Ordinance is determined by the aggregate value of the claim on the date the action is filed.

De Silva v. Lever (28 N. L. R. 435) and Silva v. Fernando (11 N. L. R. 375) followed.

Failure to tender the proper amount of stamps for the certificate in appeal is a fatal irregularity.

The defect cannot be cured by tendering the correct amount after the time limit.

Salgado v. Peiris (12 N. L. R. 379) followed.

PLAINTIFF filed an action for restoration to possession of a temple worth Rs. 500. He was ousted from possession in September and he claimed damages from the date of ouster at the rate of Rs. 10 per mensem. The action was filed in November.

H. V. Perera (with him V. Manikavasagar), for defendants, appellants.- The prayer is for ejectment and damages for two months. The stamps were calculated for the Rs. 500 class.. The petition of appeal was stamped in that class. Actions must be classified according to the subject-matter. There may be incidental matter, but in valuing only the main claim must be taken into account. The Courts of Requests have jurisdiction where the subject-matter is under Rs. 300. At the same time a claim for damages can be added to the main action. The stamps too, then, must be according to that class. Under the Stamp Ordinance, 1909 (vol. II. at p. 942), actions in the District Court are put into different classes.

The amendment, the Stamp Ordinance, No. 19 of 1927 (vol. V. p. 233) is immaterial.

There are some explanatory words with regard to the. classification for costs in the Civil Procedure Code, 1889 ; but there are none in the Stamp Ordinance. These words ought to be added to the Stamp Ordinance.

[POYSER S.P.J.-Has there been any case before this ?J

None. The practice has not been uniform. There is a similar provision in the Courts Ordinance, 1889, with regard to the jurisdiction of the Courts of Requests (Banda v. Menika [1 (1919) 21 N L R.. 279]  Unless these words are added, there will be an anomaly, because a person has to pay less stamp duty if he brings the action immediately.

[POYSER S.P.J.-Some words must be read.]

Yes.

[SOERTSZ J.-The matter will be doubtful if those words are not added.] Yes. The sentence is incomplete. There will be an anomaly with regard to stamps and costs unless the same rules are applied.

N. Nadarajah, C.C., for Attorney-General.-For the purposes of stamp duty the aggregate value must be considered. Chapter II. of the Stamp Ordinance, 1909, must be taken with Part II. of Schedule B. The value of the suit is taken into consideration and not one item of the claim. In India it was held that the value is the aggregate-Court Fees and Valuation Acts by Basu, p. 46.

The rates of costs and stamp duty are different (de Silva v. Lever [1 (1927) 28 N. L. R. 435. at p. 436.]

For the purposes of jurisdiction, debt and damage are taken on the one hand and the title on the other. But when both are joined, the aggregate must be taken into account. Banda v. Menika (supra) does not apply where damages are tacked on to land.

Where petitions of appeal are under-stamped, the appeals are dismissed.

[POYSER S.P.J.-What about relief ?]

It seems to be peremptory. (Hurst v. The Attorney-General [2 (1917) 4 C. W. R. 265.] ;Salgado v. Peiris[3 (1909) 12 N. L. R. 379.] ; Attorney-General v. Karunaratne[ 4' (1935) 37 N. L. R. 57.];  James v. Karunaratne[ 5 (1935) 37 N. L. R. 154.]'. In India there is relief under an express section. (R. Subrao v. S. Venkata-rao[6 A. I. R. (1918) P. C. 188.]'. See section 36 of the Stamp Ordinance an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document