Samynathan V. Atukorale

940       Present: Soertsz and Keuneman JJ. 

SAMYNATHAN v. ATUKORALE. 

78-D. C. (Inty.) Ratnapura, 5,916 with 135-D. C. (Final) Ratnapura, 5,916. 

Stamps-Value of action for purposes of fixing stamp duty-Value placed on subject-matter in pleadings is the test-Petition of appeal stamped according to value of land stated in plaint. 

An action remains throughout the proceedings, for the purpose of levying the stamp duty, in the class in which the pleadings placed it unless an order of the Court at a relevant stage of the case put it in a class of higher or lower value. 

Sinnetamby v. Tangamma (1 C. A. C. 151) followed.

 Bartleet v. Perera (15 C. L. W. 3) distinguished. 

A N appeal from a judgment of the District Judge of Ratnapura. 

A preliminary objection was raised by the plaintiff-respondent on the ground that the petition of appeal had been insufficiently stamped. 

The defendant-appellant stamped the petition of appeal upon the basis of the value of the lands as stated in the plaint. 

R. L. Pereira, K.C. (with him M. T. de S. Amerasekere, K.C., and C. S. Barr Kumarakulasingham), for the plaintiff, respondent, takes preliminary objection.-The appeal is not properly constituted. Adequate stamps have not been supplied by the appellant. The petition of appeal has been stamped on the footing of the value mentioned in the plaint. In point of fact the value of the subject-matter of the action, whether determined by the value of compensation claimed in the answer or by the value fixed by the defendant to the lands in dispute, is higher than the sum mentioned in the plaint. Further, the District Judge himself has assessed the value of the lands at Rs. 88,000. Bartleet v. Perera [1(1939)15 C.L.W. 3] is directly in point. See also In re Porkodi Achi [2 (1922) A. I. R. Mad. 211.] and In re G. B. Seethayamma [3 (1925) A. I. R. Mad. 323.]. 

H. V. Perera, K.C. (with him N. E. Weerasooria, K.C., E. A. P. Wijeratne, and A. E. R. Corea), for the defendant, appellant.-There is no substance in the objection. When there is a claim and a counter-claim, the bigger of the two, and not their aggregate, determines the value of the action-Little's Oriental Balm and Pharmaceutical, Ltd. v. P. P. Saibo [4 (1938) 40 N. L. R. 441.] . In the present case the actual claim in reconvention (Rs. 7,500) is less than the value of the subject-matter in dispute, as assessed in the plaint. The incidental statement in the answer that we had spent Rs. 100,000 for improvements cannot be regarded as a formal claim. Further, the compensation for any improvement is essentially less than the value of the land on which it is put up; the part can never be greater than the whole. 

In our law stamping is decided according to the value which emerges from the pleading

Click Here to Read the rest of this document