RAM SWARUP Vs. JOTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a stamp reference made by a learned Munsif through the District Judge of Bareilly under the following circumstances: The plaintiff before the learned Munsif in Suit No. 327 of 1932 in the Court of the Munsif of Pilibhit brought the. suit, out of which this reference has arisen, to recover a certain sum of money on foot of a bond which had been sold in his favour by defendant 2 in the suit on 6th September 1928, defendant 1, presumably being the executant of the bond. By this sale deed the plaintiff purchased not only the bond in suit but also 28 other bonds all sold to him by defendant 2. The sale consideration was Rs. 2,425 although at the date of the sale the total amount due on the several bonds sold was a much larger sum. The sale deed bore a stamp duty of Rs. 5. The question raised is whether the duty is sufficient. The learned Munsif himself thought that the stamp of Rs. 5 might be sufficient although be was not quite certain in his mind. He consulted the Chief Inspector of Stamps and that officer was of opinion that a stamp duty should have been calculated treating the sale deed as 29 sale deeds, there being one sale deed for each of the 29 bonds. He was of opinion that Section 5, Stamp Act, applied and each bond should be treated as a "distinct matter".

(2.) The first thing that is to be considered is whether the sale deed really comprises or relates to several distinct matters within the meaning of Section 5, Stamp Act and therefore the charge should be the aggregate amount of the duties on each separate instrument each comprising or relating to one of such matters as would be chargeable under the Act. If the bonds are to be treated as "distinct matters," then if a grove be sold, the numerous trees standing on the grove must also be treated as distinct matters. Similarly the argument may be pressed forward with a great deal of force that when a sack of wheat is sold each grain of wheat in the sack should be treated as a distinct matter. The expression is "distinct matters" and not/ "distinct articles". Distinct matters would be comprised in an instrument, if different transactions are sought to be evidenced by the same deed. So long a transaction is one and the same it would not comprise distinct matters simply because the goods or properties dealt with by the transaction happen to be more than one. If by one transaction a zamindari share a house and some furniture be sold, then nobody would say that the sale deed comprises or relates to several distinct matters and that the duty should be paid separately for each of the articles or properties sold and the aggregate value settled as the consideration of the sale deed should be split up and apportioned to each of the properties sold moveable or immovable.

(3.) The Chief Inspector of Stamps has stated in Ms letter that the view taken by him is supported by the Board of Revenue of the United Provinces and also by the Board of Revenue of the Madras Presidency. But no case reported or unreported has been laid before us and I am not in a position to consider the grounds on which the view has been entertained. On principle, however, and on an independent reading of Section 5, I am clearly of opinion that it has no application. Although in my opinion Section 5 does not apply it is necessary to find out what would be the stamp duty payable on the document as the stamp reference is before us and we should not content ourselves with leaving the entire point undecided simply because none of the views taken by the Munsif and the Chief Inspector of Stamps respectively appeals to me. Art. 62, Schedule 1, Stamp Act, applies to the case of a "transfer" (which includes a sale) of any interest secured by a bond. In such a case the duty to be paid is the duty payable on the bond if the same does not exceed Rs. 5 and if the duty exceeds Rs. 5 then Rs. 5 It has been contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the duty payable, where more than one bond is sold, must be the aggregate of the duties paid for each bond provided the aggregate does not exceed Rs. 5 and if the aggregate sum exceeds Rs. 5 then Rs. 5. The argument is based on Section 13, General Clauses Act (10 of 1897), which says that, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, words in the singular shall include the plural and vice versa. To apply Section 13 we have to see whether there is anything repugnant in the context or not. In my opinion the very fact that the duty on the bond to be sold is to be considered makes it impossible for us to apply the1 rule of interpretation contained in Section 13, General Clauses Act. If Section 13 be applied we shall have to read Art. 62(c)(i) as follows: