U K JANARDHAN RAO Vs. SECYOF STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under Section 57, Stamp Act of 1899, made by the Board of Revenue, Bengal, pursuant to an order made by my learned brother Panckridge, J. The question is as to the amount of duty to be charged upon a conveyance, dated 13 December 1928 whereby the applicant U.K. Janardhan Rao bought from Rama Raju Hanumantha Rao certain immovable property known as 16, Ramesh Mitter Road, in Calcutta. The case stated does not set out the facts at all clearly but the following facts are not in dispute:

(2.) On 23 May 1923 a certain man called Biswas and his wife executed a mortgage over this property to a lady of the name of Hemlata for Rs. 15,000 with certain interest. The property at that time may have belonged to Biswas or to his wife, or to both, or to neither; the mortgage may or may not have been a mortgage according to the true construction whereof the mortgagors, or either of them, became personally liable to repay the loan. In 1925, Rama Raju, in execution of a money decree obtained by him against Biswas, purchased the right, title and interest of Biswas in this property for a sum of Rs. 3,233-6-0. On 13 December 1928, when the applicant purchased the same from Rama Raju, by the conveyance which is now in question, there was due and outstanding upon the mortgage of Hemlata a total sum of Rs. 25,636, namely Rs. 10,636, due as interest and Rs. 15,000 as principal. The document was stamped with a stamp of Rs. 35 on the footing that the stamp had to be calculated solely on the purchase price payable thereunder by the applicant to Rama Raju, namely, Rs. 1,000. The Board of Revenue claim that they are entitled to a stamp duty amounting to Rs. 405 upon the sum of Rs. 26,636, that is upon the consideration of Rs. 1,000 plus Rs. 25,636 due for principal and interest on Hemlata's mortgage.

(3.) Now, an instrument must be stamped according to its legal effect and intention. The conveyance before us recites that the vendor is seized and possessed of, or otherwise, well and sufficiently entitled to, the property therein described; it recites that this property was sold on 16 July 1925 in execution of a decree obtained by the vendor against Biswas and was purchased by the vendor for Rs. 3,233-6-0; that the certificate of sale was issued by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, 24 Pergannahs, on 9 March 1926; and that delivery of possession was obtained from the said Court on 19 April 1928. By its operative clause, in consideration of Rs. 1,000 the vendor grants to the purchaser all the right, title and interest of the vendor in the property. Next the vendor declares that he has not in any way incumbered the property. Next comes a covenant for further assurance and then follows this: Be it stated that there is a suit being Title Suit No. 88 of 1928 pending in the Court of the First Subordinate Judge of Alipore relating to the said property brought by one Sreeamutty Hemlata Dassi of 124 Aheeritola Street, Calcutta for enforcing a previous mortgage deed for Rs. 15,000 said to be executed on 23 May 1923 by Rasaraj Biswas the aforesaid vendee of the vendor and his wife Sreemutty Promodini Dassi of Sonamukhi within the District of Bankura in which the said vendor has been made a defendant.