SUGGU SURYANARAYANAMURTY Vs. SARIPELLA SATYANARAYANARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision raised a question of stamp duty and penalty. The document in question was described as a non-possessory mortgage deed for Rs. 2,660, dated 30th July, 1950, in favour of Suryanarayanamurthi. After reciting that the executant had become liable to pay that amount to Suryanarayanamurthi, it was stated that the creditor demanded from the executant an agreement that he should pay the said amount or, in the alternative, that he should give some immoveable property as security for the said amount and that the executant, in compliance with the said demand, executed the said document. The document then prceeds to state:

(2.) The Subordinate Judge of Amalapuram held that this document recorded two transactions (i) repayment of certain money with interest and (ii) agreement to mortgage the properties described in the schedule and, therefore, under section 5 of the Indian Stamp Act, the executant should pay Re.1-8-0 on the first transaction, which was a bond, and Rs. 45 on the second transaction, viz., the agreement to mortgage the properties. As Re.1-8-0 only was paid, he directed the deficit to be collected.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the main object of the document was only to create a liability to pay a sum of Rs. 2,660 within the prescribed time and the agreement to execute a mortgage deed in default was only ancillary to the main object and, therefore, stamp duty of Re.1-8-0 paid on the basis it was a bond was correct. Section 5, which prescribes the manner of stamping a multifarious instrument reads :