Sri Lanka Law Reports
 3 Sri L.Ft.
v.RANASINGHE AND OTHERS
COURT OF APPEAL
CALA NO. 344/2000
DC COLOMBO NO. 21466/MR
MARCH 04, 2002
Stamp Duty Act, No. 43 of 1932, sections 2 (a), 2 (b), 36 and 69 – Stamps Ordinance,
No. 22 of 1909, section 36 (b) – Similarity – Is a statement of account chargeable
with stamp duty?
The documents that have to be stamped are described in the Regulation madeunder section 69 of Act, No. 43 of 1982, and published in the GovernmentGazette No. 224/3 of 20. 12. 62 and in the amendment to the GovernmentGazette bearing No. 1000/17 of 05. 11. 97. The Statement of Account (P2)is not included with items published in the Government Gazette.
Document P2 was not the document which the cause of action is based uponbut is merely a document of evidential value, explaining the liability of thedefendant-petitioner to pay such moneys and was to impeach the defencethat the defendant-petitioner had duly paid out the consideration that was due.
In terms of section 36 court could have accepted the document in evidence- upon the payment of the penalty.
P2 falls within section 2 (b) and not within section 2 (a) of the StampDuty Act.
APPLICATION for leave to appeal from the order of the District Court of Colombo.
Ikram Mohamed, PC with Lai Munasinghe for defendant-appellant.
Nihal Jayamanne, PC with Noorani Amarasinghe for plaintiff-respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
Jayathunga v. Ranasinghe and Others(Tilakawardane, J.)
May 28, 2002
SHIRANEE TILAKAWARDANE, J.
The petitioner in this case has preferred this application seeking leave oito appeal from the order of the Additional District Court Judge ofColombo dated 23. 10. 2000 and seeking to set aside the said ordermarked G. During the trial, on 26. 01. 2000 the 1st plaintiff throughher counsel had moved to mark out a statement of account sent bythe defendant-petitioner dated 07. 01. 1990 and marked as P2. Thecounsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent raised objection on thebasis that the document P2 had not been considered in terms of theprovisions of the Stamp Duty Act, No. 43 of 1982. The document P2,a statement of expenditure, shows that the defendant had utilized 3.2 10million obtained by the sale of premises bearing No. 26/D, 6th Lane,Nawala and had upon the direction of the husband of the 1st plaintiffthe defendant had invested the consideration obtained by such sale.
In the circumstances the balance part of the consideration afterexpenditure had been paid out on account of the plaintiff's daughter’smarriage, which was now due to the 1st plaintiff and her children whowere the legal heirs. It is to be noted that the document P2 was notthe document on which the cause of action is based upon but is merelya document of evidential value, explaining the liability of the defendant-petitioner to pay such moneys and was to impeach the defence that 20the defendant had duly paid out the consideration that was due.
Section 36 (b) of the Stamp Ordinance No. 22 of 1909 is similarto section 36 of the Stamp Act, No. 43 of 1982.
Section 36 (b) of the Ordinance reads as follows:
(b) “Where any person from whom stamped receipts could have beendemanded has given an unstamped receipt and such receipt ifstamped would be admissible in evidence against him, then suchreceipts shall be admitted in evidence against him in paymentof a penalty of one Rupee by the person who is tendering it.”
Sri Lanka Law Reports
 3 Sri L.R.
Section 36 of the Stamp Act reads follows:30
“Where any person required to give a stamped receipt has givenan unstamped receipt and such receipt if stamped would be admissiblein evidence against him then such receipts shall notwithstanding anythingin section 33 be admitted against him on payment of a penalty ofRs. 5 by the person who is tendering it.”
Accordingly, court could have accepted the document in evidenceupon the payment of the penalty.
In this sense it is important to distinguish the document that islikely a surety bond or promissory note which is required to be stampedin terms of Stamp Act.40
The documents that have to be stamped are described in theregulation made under section 69 of the Stamp Duty Act, No. 43of 1982 and published in the Government Gazette No. 224/3of 20.12. 82 and in the amendment to the Gazette bearing No. 1000/
17 of 05. 11. 97. The statement of account as set out in P2 is notincluded in the items published in the Gazette. For these reasons Isee no reason to interfere with the order of the learned District Judgedated 23. 10. 2000 whereby he had rejected the objection and heldthat the said document was not an instrument chargeable with stampduty in terms of section 2 (a) of the Stamp Duty Act but as a document sowhich falls within section 2 (b) of the said Act. Therefore, I hold thatthe document is admissible in evidence. Accordingly, the applicationstands dismissed with costs.
JAYATHUNGA v. RANASINGHE AND OTHERS