A.S.K. Nataraja Udayar vs Ranganathan Pillai and another

Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.—This is a petition filed by one Nataraja Udayar, the plaintiff in S. C. S. No. 317 of 1955. For revising and letting aside the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore holding that the entries in the account book of the plaintiff signed by the defendants acknowledging the indebtedness of amounts would fall within the Stamp Act, if they were not the total amounts due under the prior entries but were independent amounts advanced that day under those entries The suit itself was filed for recovering a sum of some Rs. 1391-1-3 from the defendants The entries in the plaintiffs'' account books, some of which were signed by the defendants, were also relied on to prove the claim Some of these entries were only for Rs. 10 and other sums below Rs. 20, but, presumably, there were some entries covering Rs. 20 or more acknowledged as debts by the defendants under their signatures The lower Court held that such entries would be liable to pay stamp duty, and should be excluded if unstamped. Hence this civil revision petition. I have perused the records and heard Counsel on both sides Mr. Manickavasagam, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner, urged that the lower Court was wrong in holding that entries in account books, of even Rs. 20 and above advanced that very day and covered by the signature of the person liable, would fall under the Stamp Act. His argument was that the entry in the account itself will show the debt apart from the signature of the person liable. He relied on two rulings. The first was that of Mack J. in Sripada Sambasiva Rao Vs. Kaki Venkatasuryanarayanamurthy and Others, . That will not help him. There it was a case of Rs. 54-3-6 due on previous dealings, the total amounts of which had been added up and acknowledged to be correct Mack J. therefore held that Schedule I, Art. 1 of the Stamp Act will not apply, since the signature did not "supply evidence of any debt then due" or of any premise to pay the debt, and the consolidated amount represented various previous debts added together that day. Of course, the total amount in that case was only Rs. 54-3-6, and there is no evidence that any of the single debts amounted to Rs. 20 or more and was covered by the signature of the person liable in order to evidence such a debt. The next ruling relied on was that of Sankaran Nair J. in Muthiah Nadar v. David Nadar 5 I.C. 756. There, the account book itself was not in Court, as here, and there is no knowing whether there was any entry of Rs. 20 or above signed by the person liable in order to evidence the debt, and as representing an advance that day. So that ruling too will not help the petitioner Receipts for Rs. 20 or more, even when taken in registers or books, will be liable under the Stamp Act.

Then Mr Manickavasagam urged that, even so, the learned Subordinate Judge was wrong in quoting an entry regarding Rs. 10 as if that too would be liable under the Stamp Act. I dare say he was quoting it only to show the nature of the entry, and not for proving that the entry of Rs. 10 signed by the defendants would also be liable under the Stamp Act.

Learned Counsel for the respondents wanted to urge that several items of Rs. 10, when added together, would make up far more than Rs. 20 and therefore, if they are covered by the signatures of the defendants, should be stamped 1 cannot agree. Under the law, any person owing another person Rs. 38 can give it in two installments of Rs. 19 each to the creditor who can give two receipts of Rs. 19 each and escape paying any stamp duty. This is not evasion of law or any other reprehensible act What the law allows a Court cannot disallow, and the use of law can never be an abuse of law.

So I make it clear that the entries in the petitioner''s account books will fall under the Stamp Act only,

(1) where such entries are for Rs. 20 or more, and are covered by the signatures of the defendants or any of them for evidencing the debt;

(2) where such entries do not represent additions of previous entries of liability but represent fresh liability evidenced by those entries alone and (3) where the signature is directly against the entry of Rs. 20 or more, in order to furnish evidence of that debt, as in the entry quoted by the learned Subordinate Judge ''

11th Thai, Nandhana, debit through Manavalam Pillai (nadavu) for transplanting ragi cash Rs. 10. For this Rs. 10 (signature) Manavalam Pillai.

Of course, it must be for Rs. 20 or more. With this clarification, this civil revision petition is dismissed, but, in the circumstances, without costs.