S MANJIT SINGH Vs. J P JARRAWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case an objection has been taken by the defendants that the document which has been termed as an agreement is not a mere agreement but a lease deed or an agreement for lease and therefore chargeable under the appropriate head under the Stamp Act. This point was argued by the learned counsel for the parties at great length. It is relevant to reproduce the contents of the document which are as follows: -

(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the defendants is that the document creates an actual demise although it is mentioned in the said document that the lease is to commence from 1st of April, 1957 and that a regular rent deed will be signed by any of the tenants defendants. It is submitted that it is immaterial whether possession had to be delivered at the time of the execution of the said deed or at some future date. For construing a document, the whole of the instrument is to be looked at. The intention of the parties as revealed by the document, was to create a present demise and all the terms relating to the lease were settled at the time of the execution of the said deed. Reliance is placed on AIR 1930 Bom 210. AIR 1934 Mad 418 and AIR 1930 Pat 530.

(3.) AS against this the learned counsel for the plaintiffs has submitted that it is only when a document creates actual demise that it can be said to be a lease deed or an agreement to let. It is urged by referring to the various terms of the document that this does not create any present demise - Lease deed had to be executed at a future date and the landlord had to deliver the possession of the property to the tenants on 1st of April, 1957 on their executing a regular rent deed and the landlords were further bound to complete its construction in all respects before the date of commencement of the lease. The tenants took upon themselves to make all arrangements for furniture etc. at their own cost. Reliance is placed on AIR 1923 Bom 553, AIR 1969 Raj 22 and AIR 1954 SC 496.