MATHAI MATHEW Vs. THAMPI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The simple question in this revision is whether the suit document produced by plaintiff is a bond or agreement. Answer to this question will determine the amount of duty and penalty payable thereon. The plaintiff who produced the document in the Trial Court called it a promissory note. The defendant wanted it to be treated as a bond. The lower court found that it is only an agreement. Hence, the plaintiff was directed to pay stamp duty and penalty accordingly. This Civil Revision Petition, therefore, has been filed by the defendant in challenge of the order as per which the lower court found that the document is only an agreement.

(2.) The document is dated 22-11-1983 It is written on a plain paper. It purports to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The bried recitals contained therein read thus: "The amount of Rupees Fourteen thousand which I had received from you shall be repaid immediately (within two months) on completion of the sale of the property allotted to my share". If the document is a bond, the stamp duty payable thereon should have been at the rate specified in Art.23 of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act (for short 'the Act') and hence the stamp duty and penalty will come to Rs. 3,479.30. If it is only an agreement the stamp duty, as per Art.5 of the Schedule as it remained in force on the date of execution of the document, would have come to Rupees three only.

(3.) One of the principles to be followed in interpreting a taxing statute has been laid down by a constitution bench of the Supreme Court as early as in Empress Mills v. Municipal Committee ( AIR 1958 SC 341 ) The principle is, if two interpretations are possible effect should be given to that which favours the citizen and not that which imposed a greater burden on him, The aforesaid principle can be followed in construing the provisions of the Act where the citizen has to pay stamp duty on the instruments defined therein.