VINAYAK DATTATRAYA Vs. HASANALI HAJI NAZARALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision by the defendant in a money suit, objecting to the order of the Civil Judge that it was not necessary to impound for assessment of stamp duty, a deed of gift produced by the plaintiff as the basis of his right to sue, and that it was admissible without stamp duty. Though this is only a matter arising between the Government and the plaintiff in regard to taxation, the present case raises important questions regarding the significance of the words "admitted into evidence" in Section 36 of the Stamp Act, the real meaning of the words "value of the property as set forth in such instrument" in Article 33 in the Schedule of the Stamp Act, and in general, the significance of Sections 27, 61 and 64 of the said Act.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the plaintiff brought this suit as the present owner of a running business by virtue of a deed of gift from the original owner, who was no other than his father. A gift-deed was referred to in the plaint, and was produced in time, setting out the particulars of the establishment but not mentioning the value of the property that was being gifted and on which the donee was being placed in possession. However, elsewhere in the document certain liabilities of the donor have been mentioned and it has been stated that the donee should take over that liability. The document riot being stamped, the defendant raised an objection as to the admissibility at that stage and urged that the document should be treated as being for a consideration at least equal to the debt which, as a part of the general arrangement, the donee was to take over. On that basis, the penalty payable in the event of the document being impounded and sent to the Collector for taxation would be of the order of several thousands.

(3.) THE Civil Judge held that the value of the property or the consideration for the gift has not been set forth in the deed. Whether or not it is a breach of the requirement of Section 27 of the Stamp Act, and whether or not there was a case for starting a prosecution under Section 64 of the Act, the document was not under Article 33 liable to any tax for that very simple reason. In effect, it applied the principles contained in the Full Bench ruling in the matter of Muhammad Muzaffar Ali, AIR 1922 All 82 (2) which in fact happens to be practically the only reported ruling on this point, and ordered: