( 275 )
NATCHIRE et at. v. ISMAIL LEBBE.
D. C., Kalvtara, 1,260.
Agreement to deliver jewellery, the., on marriage—Necessity of stamping it—-W henit may be stamped—Ordinance No. 3 of 1896, s. 32—Prescription.
A writing whereby defendant promised to deliver to plaintiffson their marriage certain jewellery and other ornaments is anagreement which must be stamped before it is received in evidence ;and it may be stamped under section 32 of Ordinance No. 3 of1890, although the prescriptive term of six years has expired afterits execution, provided the action in which it was sued upon wasin fact instituted within such term.
'T'HE two plaintiffs sued on a document whereby the defendanthad promised to deliver to them on their marriage with eachother certain jewellery. Objection was taken that the documentwas not stamped, and the plaintiffs thereupon moved to stampit under section 32 of Ordinance No. 3 of 1890. The DistrictJudge disallowed the motion and dismissed the case. The plaintiffsappealed.
Pieris, for appellants.
Bawa, for respondent.
30th November, 1896. Lawbde, J.—
In my opinion the writing founded on by the plaintiffs by whichthe defendant promised to deliver jewellery and other ornamentsto the plaintiffs on their marriage.is an agreement which must bestamped before it is received in evidence. I am unable to sustainthe refusal of the learned District Judge to allow the plaintiffs anopportunity of having the instrument stamped on payment of thefine and conform to the 32nd section of the Stamp Ordinance,No. 3 of 1890. I find nothing in the Ordinance which makes itimpossible to get an instrument of this kind legally stamped afterexecution. x It was urged that as an action on the agreement couldnot be brought after six years of the breach of the agreement,the agreement could not be stamped now after six years had expired.I am of the opinion that as the action was brought in time thelimitation does not apply, and that the writing may be stampednow.
Set aside, and sent back for further proceedings according tolaw. Plaintiffs to have the costs of^tMs appeal.
[Appeal dealt with by one Judge under Ordinance No. 5 of1896.J
November 23and 30.
NATCHIRE et al. v. ISMAIL LEBBE