AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved inasmuch as the Court below declined to number the suit filed by the petitioner and
returned the same directing the petitioner to comply with payment of stamp duty penalty in respect of Document No. 1, which is a memorandum of
deposit of title deeds, which according to the Court below requires such payment by virtue of Article 6(2)(a) of the Indian Stamp Act.
When the revision came for admission on 17.4.2006, notice was ordered to be served on the Additional Government Pleader (Civil Side) to
assist the Court.
Today, when the revision was taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Civil Side) pointed out that the very
Explanation to Article 6(2)(a) and (b) of the Indian Stamp Act came to be added by Act 31 of 2004, published in the Tamil Nadu Government
Gazette Extraordinary Part-IV, Section 2, dated 25.11.2004, which came into effect on 16.12.2004. The explanation reads as under:
Explanation.- For the purpose of this Article, notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court or order of any
authority, any letter, note, memorandum or writing relating to the deposit of title deeds whether written or made either before or at the time when
or after the deposit of title deeds is effected, and if it is in respect of the security for any loan, such letter, note, memorandum or writing shall be
deemed to be an instrument evidencing an agreement relating to the deposit of title deeds.
In fact, there is a decision of the Hon''ble Chief Justice, M.N. Chandurkar, reported in 100 LW 4 in Nanjappa, H.G. v. M.F.C. Industries (P)
Ltd., wherein, the learned Judge has held that memorandum accompanying a list of title deeds deposited under an equitable mortgage did not
require registration and is admissible in evidence.
Apparently, the Explanation came to be added to the said Article in the light of the ratio laid down in the said decision. In any case, the
Document No. 1, which is a memorandum of deposit of title deeds, is dated 11.11.2000. Therefore, even applying Article 6(2)(a) of the Indian
Stamp Act, having regard to the addition of Explanation with effect from 16.12.2004, there was no scope to hold that the same would attract levy
of stamp duty penalty to the present Document No. 1, inasmuch as the said document came into existence long prior to the inclusion of the
Explanation to Article 6(2)(a) of the Act.
Therefore, having regard to the decision reported in 100 LW 4 referred to above, as well as the Explanation added to Article 6(2)(a) of the
Act, the return of the plaint on that ground cannot be sustained. The revision petition, therefore, stands allowed. The petitioner shall be permitted to
re-present the plaint within one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Court below is directed to number the plaint if the same is
otherwise in order. No costs.
The assistance rendered by the learned Additional Government Pleader (Civil Side) is appreciated.