High CourtsDivision Bench(1920) 01 MAD CK 0023

Amirthammal vs Madalakaram alias Ramalinga Goundan

Madras High Court · Decided on 22 January 1920 · Citation: (1920) ILR (Mad) 363 : 57 Ind. Cas. 184 : (1920) 12 LW 537 : (1920) 38 MLJ 503

HON’BLE JUDGES
Wallis, C.J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 137 words

Wallis, C.J.—Following the decision in Kulwanta v. Mahabier Prasad ILR (1888) All. 16 (F.B.) . and Ref. case 19 of 1911 we hold that

the bond must be stamped both under the Court Fees Act and under Article 40 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act, as it comes within the definition of

a mortgage in Section 2(5) of the Indian Stamp Act, and Article 15 is therefore inapplicable. In Ref. case No. 9 of 1908 the the point that the

bond in question was a mortgage within the meaning of the definition does not appear to have been taken. In re The District Munsif of Tiruvallur

ILR (1911) Mad. 17 the bond, which was given by a judgment-debtor and two sureties does not appear to have been a mortgage bond and

consequently came within Article 15.