ARUMUGHAM Vs. KULANDAIVELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that arises for consideration in this civil Revision Petition at the instance of the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 2274 of 1981, District Munsif's Court, Tiruchirapalli , is whether the Court below was right in its conclusion that no stamp duty is leviable in respect of the document styled as a deed of release relied upon by the respondent and directing its admission in evidence. THE document in question is styled as a surrender of rights under a lease. THE recitals therein indicate that the executants have clearly given up and surrendered their tenancy rights with reference to the property appended to the schedule. THE market value of the property is stated to be Rs. 20,000/ -. Relying upon this,the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the document in question would be a release falling under Article 55 of Schedule I and therefore, the document should have been stamped in accordance with Article 55 (b) and a stamp duty of at least Rs. 25 should have been paid. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that the appropriate Article applicable is Article 61, which specifically provides for surrender of lease and as in this case the lease had been executed by a cultivating tenant and that lease was exempted from payment of stamp duty under section 4 - B (2) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, and as such a tenant had subsequently executed the document of surrender of lease, no stamp duty at all is leviable.

(2.) THE document refers to the cultivation of the properties appended to the document by the executants thereof as tenants since, 1964. THEre is also a reference to the purchase of the property by the respondent to carry on personal cultivation and the acceptance thereof by the executants of the document and the execution of a deed of surrender in accordance therewith giving up or surrendering such tenancy rights as the executants had in those propertied No doubt, in the body of the document, no consideration for the surrender is set out. THE market value of the property is stated to ,be Rs. 20,000/ -. On a due consideration of the terms of the document in question, it is cleat that the executants of the document have agreed to surrender their rights in the property which was being cultivated by them on lease and such a document would clearly fall under Article 61 as a surrender of lease and not under Article 55 which provides generally for a release.