Calcutta High Court
Kirty Churn Mitter vs Aunath Nath Deb on 1 May, 1882
Equivalent citations: (1882)ILR 8CAL757
JUDGMENT Garth, C.J.
1. I think the Taxing Master is quite right. If the plaintiff's suit had been to recover possession of, or establish his title to, the share which he claims in the property, he must have paid an ad valorem stamp-fee upon the value of that share. But, as I understand, he is already in possession of his share, and all that he wants is, to obtain a partition, which is merely, as explained by the learned Judges in the case of Rajendro Lall Gossami v. Shama Churn Lahoory 4 C.L.R. 418 to "change the form of his enjoyment" of the property, or, in other words, to obtain a divided, instead of an undivided, share.
2. It seems to me impossible to say what will be the value to the plaintiff of this change in the nature of his property, and I, therefore, think a stamp-fee of Rs. 10 is sufficient.
3. The view of the Judges in the above case seems quite in accordance with this conclusion.
4. It was quite right of course, for the purpose of jurisdiction, to be guided by the value of the property in suit, but the amount of the stamp-fee is governed by a different principle.