S RANGARAJU NAIDU Vs. COLLECTOR OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Application No. 5409 of 1954 is by the plaintiffs to give time for the defendant to pay the deficit stamp duty called for by the Collector of Madras, and, on failure to pay the deficit within the extended time, to strike off the defence; and the writ of certiorari is by the defendant for quashing the order of the Collector of Madras in B-2-14451/54 dated 8-10-1954.

(2.) The facts are: Sri S. Kamesam was the owner of a patent right for manufacturing a wood preservative by name "ASCU". This Kamesam Pantulu conveyed this patent right to the defendant Rangaraju Naidu, Agent, Burma Shell, Salem, This conveyance dated 9-4-1945 was executed in Bangalore where S. Kamesam Pantulu was residing; and, the entire stamp duty payable on that document as per the Mysore Stamp Act, viz., Rs. 4687-8-0 was paid by the grantee Rangaraju Naidu. It is common ground that a counter-part has been executed and is in the possession of Kamesam Pantulu. The original stamped instrument as per the Mysore Stamp Act has been in the possession of Rangaraju Naidu. On 12-3-1945 Rs. 50,000 was paid by cheque by tho defendant to Kamesam Pantulu. On 29-345 Rs. 1,00,000, has been paid in cash out of the sum of four lakhs assured in favour of Kamesam Pantulu under the deed of assignment dated 9-4-1945. On the date of execution, 9-4-1945, a sum of Rs. 50,000 has been paid. Kamesam Pantulu has thereafter been pressing for the repayment of the balance of two lakhs assured under this document dated 9-4-1945.

(3.) On 3-7-19-16 the advocate for the defendant has replied alleging discharge of payment of Rs. 2,00,000, and staling that/the defendant was liable only for a baJance of one lakh of rupees. On 9-9-1946 a reply has been made by the defendant that only one lakh of rupees was due and that the deed was actually executed on 2-4-1945 and had been altered into 9-4-1945. Thereafter Kamesam Pantulu has filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Salem, O. S. No. 8 of 1947, on 19-12-1946, producing the counter part along with the plaint. The defence was that the assignment has been Brought about by undue influence and misrepresentation amounting to fraud, and, the transaction was unfair and unconscionable in character and that advantage has been taken of the defendant's youth and that the deed was insufficiently stamped aspect the Madras Stamp Act and was inadmissible and unenforceable. On 24-6-1949 the defendant produced the original of the assignment into Court on a subpoona issued by the Court at the instance of the plaintiffs who naturally wanted it to be marked in order to establish their claim.