BASN'AYAKJE f C.J.—Fernando v. Corea
1960Present: Basnayake, C.J., and Sansoni, J.
FERNANDO, Appellant, and COREA, RespondentS. C. 568—D. G. Chilaw, 14214
Appeal—Stamps for decree of Supreme Court—Duty payable—Stamp OrdinanceSchedule A, Part II.
When an appeal ib preferred to the Supreme Court, the value of the action,for the purpose of stamp duty is not altered by the fact that the value of the>-relief sought in appeal is less than that of the subject-matter of the action.
Appear from a judgment of the District Court, Chilaw.
Ranganathan, for Defendant-Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff-Respondent.
June 28, 1960. Basnayake, C.J.—
This appeal has been listed by the Registrar for the directions of thispCourt as sufficient stamps have not been delivered together with thepetition of appeal for its decree.
The plaintiff in this action sought to recover a sum of Rs. 2,500/-as damages suffered by her by reason of the defendant’s breach of thecovenants of the contract of lease with her. The defendant resisted theaction and asked that it be dismissed. After trial the learned District-Judge awarded the plaintiff damages in a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. Thisappeal is from that judgment.
In the petition of appeal the defendant asked that—
(а)the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge be set aside ;
(б)that the plaintiff’s action be dismissed ; and
(c) for costs of the appeal and of the trial.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the correct-amount of stamps has been tendered as the appeal petition and the decree-should be stamped according to the value of the relief sought in appeal,and that in the instant case the value of relief sought is Rs. 2,000/-which is the value for the purpose of stamp duty. We are unable to-uphold the submission of learned counsel. The value of an action for the-purpose of stamp duty is not altered by the fact that the value of therelief sought in appeal is less than that of the subject-matter of the-action. Learned counsel referred us to the case of Mohideen v. Suppiah1.That is a decision under the Appeals (Privy Council) Ordinance wher&
1 (1959) 61 N. Ii. R. 154.
Fernando v. S-iinon Singho
the value of matter in dispute on the appeal is the basis on which stampduty is payable, and is consistent with the previous decisions of thisCourt on the matter of determining the value of the proceedings inappeals to the Privy Council for the purpose of stamp duty.
The duty prescribed in Schedule A Part XI of the Stamp OrdinanceContaining the Duties on Law Proceedings in the Supreme Court in CivilProceedings is payable on the value of the action and is not onthe value of the relief sought in appeal. The fact that the value ofthe relief sought in appeal is less than the value of the action makesno difference. Both my brother who wrote the judgment cited bycounsel and I agree that that case does not apply to the determination ofthe correct stamp duty payable in respect of appeals to this Court.
The appeal is accordingly rejected.
Sansoiti, J.—I agree.
FERNANDO . Appellant, and COREA, Respondent