Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.20 seconds)The Indian Stamp Act, 1899
Section 35 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
Renu Devi vs Mahendra Singh And Ors on 4 February, 2003
The reference order mentions that the decision of a two Judge
Bench of this Court in Renu Devi v. Mahendra Singh & Ors. [AIR 2003
SC 1608] would have some bearing. In that case in a suit for partition a
compromise decree was made on 13th February, 1978 declaring the share
of the parties in the suit property. The final decree was engrossed on the
stamp paper on 24th May, 1979. Two parties to the decree gifted the
property that fell into their share by a gift deed. Title to these gifted
properties was challenged in the title suit. The Trial Court dismissed the
suit. On appeal, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal. On further
appeal, the High Court while allowing the appeal held that donors acquired
their separate title in the joint property only after the final decree was
engrossed on the stamp paper i.e. on 24th May, 1979 and, therefore, they
were legally incompetent to gift their property so as to transfer the title to
the donees inasmuch as before the decree was engrossed on the stamp
paper they did not have any title in the property.
Hindustan Steel Ltd vs M/S. Dalip Construction Company on 18 February, 1969
Such an interpretation is not permissible having regard to the object
and scheme of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The Stamp Act is a fiscal
measure enacted with an object to secure revenue for the State on certain
classes of instruments. It is not enacted to arm a litigant with a weapon of
technicality to meet the case of his opponent. The stringent provisions of
the Act are conceived in the interest of the revenue. Once that object is
secured according to law, the party staking his claim on the instrument will
not be defeated on the ground of initial defect in the instrument
{Hindustan Steel Limited v. Messrs Dilip Construction Company
[(1969) 1 SCC 597]}. Section 2(14) of the Indian Stamp Act defines an
'instrument' as including every document by which any right or liability is,
or purported to be created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or
recorded. Section 2(15) defines 'instrument of partition' as any instrument
whereby co-owners of any property divide or agree to divide such property
in severalty, and includes also a final order for effecting a partition passed
by any revenue authority or any Civil Court and an award by an arbitrator
directing partition. Section 3 provides a list of instruments which shall be
chargeable with duty of the amount indicated in Schedule I of the Indian
Stamp Act. Article 45 of Schedule I prescribes the proper stamp duty
payable in case of an instrument of partition. Section 33 provides for the
impounding of the instrument not duly stamped and for examination of the
instrument for ascertaining whether the instrument is duly stamped or not.
Section 35 provides that no instrument chargeable with duty shall be
admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or
consent of parties, authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon,
registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer,
unless such instrument is duly stamped. Section 40 (b) provides for
payment of the proper duty, if the instrument impounded is not duly
stamped. Section 42 (1) provides for certifying that proper duty has been
paid on the impounded instrument. Sub-section (2) provides that after such
certification the instrument shall be admissible in evidence, and may be
registered, acted upon and authenticated as if it had been duly stamped.
A decree in a suit for partition declares the rights of the parties in the
immovable properties and divides the shares by metes and bounds. Since
a decree in a suit for partition creates rights and liabilities of the parties
with respect to the immovable properties, it is considered as an instrument
liable for the payment of stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act. The
object of the Stamp Act being securing the revenue for the State, the
scheme of the Stamp Act provides that a decree of partition not duly
stamped can be impounded and once the requisite stamp duty along with
penalty, if any, is paid the decree can be acted upon.
Yeswant Deorao Deshmukh vs Walchand Ramchand Kothari on 1 December, 1950
In Yeshwant Deorao Deshmukh v.
Walchand Ramchand Kothari [1950 SCR 852] it was said that the
payment of court fee on the amount found due was entirely in the power of
the decree holder and there was nothing to prevent him from paying it then
and there; it was a decree capable of execution from the very date it was
passed.