High CourtsDivision Bench(1926) 03 MAD CK 0052

Cheedella Chenchayya vs Annureddi Pichireddi

Madras High Court · Decided on 9 March 1926 · Citation: AIR 1927 Mad 377 : (1927) 25 LW 246 : (1927) 52 MLJ 153

HON’BLE JUDGES
Krishnan, 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

17 paragraphs · 402 words

Krishnan, J.—This case has reference to a security bond taken by a Village Court u/s 53 of the Madras Village Courts Act (I of 1889). The

question raised is what stamp this document should bear. At present the document bears no stamp at all. When the Village Court was asked why

this document was taken without any stamp they replied that in their opinion the document fell within Article 6 of the Court Fees Act and that as

Government had exempted the Court-fees payable under the Court Fees Act in Village Courts this document required no stamp at all. This opinion

does not seem to be correct. Article 6 of Schedule II to the Court Fees Act, as amended, applies only to bail bonds and other instruments of

obligation under the Criminal Procedure Code or under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Now this bond cannot be treated as a bond under the

Civil Procedure Code, for the Code does not apply to the Village Courts at all That has been so ruled by a bench of this Court in Sankaran Nair v.

Alchuthan ILR (1923) Pat 829. It follows therefore that to decide the stamp that this document should bear we must look to the Stamp Act. It falls

under Article 46 of Schedule I-A of the Madras Stamp Act as amended which speaks of

Security bonds or mortgage deeds executed by way of security for the due execution of an office, or to account for money or other property

received by virtue thereof.

2.

The further words need not be quoted. Here the security bond was executed for property received and which the executors undertook to return

or to pay Rs. 40 instead. Under Article 46 this document should have borne the same duty as a Bottomry Bond for the amount secured and the

proper stamp seems to be 6 annas. This is our answer to the reference. The document would be admissible in evidence all the same if the stamp

duty and the penalty is paid. Apparently when exempting from Court-fees all documents filed in the Village Courts an omission was made as

regards this particular document. If this is so, it will always be open to the Government to put it right by the necessary notification. As the law at

present stands we are of opinion as above stated that the document should have borne a 6 annas stamp.