ATHIPALLI SUNDARARAMIREDDI Vs. ATHIPALLI PATTABHIRAMIREDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant and the respondent are brothers. They became divided and the partition was evidenced by certain documents. The partition was in 1933. In 1936 the plaintiff who was one of the brothers presented these documents to the Revenue authorities for ascertaining whether the documents should be stamped. Proceedings were accordingly taken under Section 41 of the Stamp Act. The Collector found that they had to be stamped and wanted action to be taken under Sections 33 and 40. He impounded the documents for collection to be made under Section 41. The duty payable and penalty were collected from the plaintiff. The plaintiff paid the amount and has now filed this suit against his brother claiming half the amount paid by him together with interest thereon as also half the expenses incurred by him as costs in the revenue proceedings. He also stated that there was an agreement between him and the defendant under which the defendant has agreed to pay half the amount.

(2.) BOTH the Courts held that under the agreement no amount was payable and the so called agreement was a list of the disputes to be settled between the two parties in future; and they also held following the decision in Raman Chetti v. Nagappa Chetti, (1915) a L.W. 1024, that the appellant is not entitled to recover any portion of the duty paid on the documents when he made the payment under orders of the revenue authorities under Section 40. It is against this decision dismissing the suit that the second appeal has been filed.

(3.) IT is urged by the earned Counsel for the appellant that so far as the claim for payment of half the duty which was payable by the defendant and which has been paid by the appellant is concerned, he is entitled to recover half of it under Section 29(g) and since both of them were bound to pay it jointly he is entitled to sue the defendant to contribute his half share. There may be some force in this argument if the amount was paid originally on the document by the appellant and he sought to recover the half share due by the defendant. When both of them failed to pay a common duty and it was by proceedings in Court that he was Compelled to pay, the question is whether under the circumstances he would be entitled to recover the half share. The observation of the Bench in Raman Chetti v. Nagappa Chetti : (1915) 2 L.W. 1024is general and definite. " It deals both with the liability to pay duty as well as penalty. The principle of law enunciated in this decision is binding on me and sitting singly I do not think I will be justified in holding that the plaintiff is entitled to recover any amount.