AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We do not consider that Exhibit A is an instrument chargeable with stamp duty of one anna under Article 1, Schedule I of the General Stamp
Act, (I of 1897).
It is a letter setting forth the terms of compromise arranged between the parties with regard to the dispute between them regarding the plaintiff''s
share in the partnership business. There is no doubt an approximate statement of the value of that share, but this does not make it an
acknowledgment intended to be used as evidence of the debt so as to fall within the article. When read with the letter to which it is a reply, it must,
in our opinion, be treated as an agreement not otherwise provided for by the Stamp Act, and. it was, therefore, chargeable with a duty of eight
annas under Article I, Clause 5 (c) of Schedule I. As, however, it was admitted in evidence by the District Munsif without payment of stamp duty
and penalty, the District Judge in appeal was precluded by Section 34 of the Stamp Act from rejecting it as inadmissible. This has been repeatedly
decided by all the High Courts. [Ramasami Chetti v. Ramasami Chetti, I.L.R., 5 M. 220; Khoob Lall v. Jungle Singh, Ib. 3 C., 787 ; Devachand
v. Hirachand Kamaraj, Ib. 13 B., 449 ; Shiddapa v. Irava, Ib. 18 B., 787.
The ground, therefore, on which the District Judge held that the claim was barred by limitation, fails.
We must, therefore, set aside his decree and remand the appeal for disposal on the merits and in accordance with law. Costs in this second
appeal to be paid by the respondents in this Court.