( 183 )
Present: De Sampayo A.C.J. and Schneider J.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. VELUPILLAI.
67—D. C. (Testy.) Jaffna, 92S.
Stamp duty—Appointment of a representative of estate of deceasedmortgagor—Ordinance No, 10 of 1919—Legal representative.
An order appointing a representative of the estate of a deceasedmortgagor under section 642 of the Civil Procedure Code requiresto be stamped according to the value of the mortgage action.
*JpHE facts appear from the judgment.
Akbarj Acting S.-G. (with him Obeyesekere, C.C.)> for the Crown,appellant.
June 11,1923. De Sampayo A.C.J.—
In this matter the question is as to whether an order appointinga representative of the estate of the deceased mortgagor undersection 642 of the Civil Procedure Code requires to be stampedunder the amended Stamp Ordinance. The mortgagee, Velupillai,applied to the Court Tinder section 642 for the appointment of aperson to represent the deceased mortgagor. The Attorney-General intervened in the action for the purpose of raising thequestion of stamp duty and securing the interests of the revenue.The District Judge having made an order that no stamps were
required for his order appointing a representative, the AttorneyGeneral has appealed. The Ordinance No. 10 of 1919, Part II.,Schedule B, relating to District Court civil proceedings, requiresevery appointment of a guardian or next friend to be stampedaccording to the value of the action. The amending Ordinance,No. 32 of 1919, amended that provision by providing for theinsertion of the words “ or legal representative ” after the words“ next friend.” The contention on behalf of the Attorney-Generalis that a legal representative ip that connection meant a represen-tative appointed under seotion 642 of the Civil Procedure Code.The expression “ legal representative ” is rather unhappy, becausesection 642 does not use it, and it is well known that the expressionhas a technical meaning, and refers to an administrator, executor,or, in the case -f a small estate, to heirs who have adiated theinheritance. For the use of that technical expression, I may referto sections 222, 338, 341, 394, and 397 of the Civil ProcedureCode, and stamps required for the appointment of administrators,executors, and other representatives of that kind are covered bythe Estate Duties Ordinance, and primd facie the appointment ofa special representative under section 642 of the Code is excluded.It was, therefore, intended by the amending Ordinance to providefor stamp duty according to the value of the action, in the caseof an appointment of a representative under section 642, for thepurpose of an intended mortgage action. I think the order of theDistrict Judge is erroneous, and he should be directed to see thatthe appointment of a representative, on the application of themortgagee, is stamped according to the value of the mortgageaction. There is no need to make any order as to costs.
Schneider J.—I agree.
THE ATTONEY GENERAL v. VELUPILLAI