107-NLR-NLR-V-61-SUBRAMANIAM-et-al-Appellants-and-SEENIAR-et-al-Respondent.pdf
BASSAYAKk, C.J.—Subramaniam v. Ssenior
433
1959Present: Basnayake, C.J., and X. D. de Silva, J.SUBRAMAHIAM et al., Appellants, and SEENTAR et al., Respondents
S. C. 687—D. G. Jaffna, 423fL
Stamp duty on legal proceedings—Assessment—Stamp Ordinance, Schedule—Civil
Procedure Code, s. 40.
The stamp duty on legal proceedings should he computed on the value of thesubject matter of the action and not on the relief prayed for.
Plaintiffs sought to recover from the defendants the sum of Ra. 1,500 asdamages for the obstruction of the way and water course from the commonwell to the plots of land cultivated by them. According to the plaint, the valueof the subject matter of the action, which was the rights sought to be vindicated,was Hs. 2,500.
Held, that the value for the purpose of stamp duty was that of the rightssought to be vindicated and not the sum claimed as damages.
^/VpREAL from a judgment of the District Court, Jaffna.
G. Banganatkan, for 1st and 2nd Defendants-Appellants.
N. Kumarasingkam, -with V. Arulambalam, for Plaintiffs-Respondents.
V. Tennelcoon, Senior Crown Counsel, -with J. W. Subasinghe, Crown
Counsel, as Amicus Curiae (on notice).
September 2, 1959. Baskasake, C.J.—
This appeal has been listed by the Registrar for a direction as to whetherit should be listed in due course for hearing as there is a deficiency ofRs. 3 in the stamps delivered by the appellant to the Secretary of theDistrict Court for the decree of the Supreme Court. The value of thesubject matter of this action according to the plaint is Rs. 2,500. The1st and 2nd defendants-appellants have not disputed that value in theiranswer. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the value forthe purpose of stamp duty is Rs. 1,500 which is the amount of damagesclaimed by the plaintiffs for the obstruction of the way and water coursefrom the common well to the plots of land cultivated by them. It hasbeen decided by this Court in the case of Silva v. Fernando1 that stampduty on legal proceedings should be computed on the value of the subjectmatter of the action and not on the relief prayed for. Wendt J. observesat p. 378—
The Stamp Ordinance, Ho. 3 of 1890, Schedule B, Part H, pres-cribes stamp duty on actions according to their value, but what it isthat is to be appraised in order to fix this value it does not specify.
1 {1908) 11 N. L. R. 375.
19—1X3
1—-3. S. B 22303-1,695 (3/60).
434
Kandiah v. Kandasamy
In the absence of such statement, I think we ought to appraise the* subject matter ’ , meaning thereby the thing (whether land, chattel,money, or interest in one of these, or right or status) which the Courtin deciding the action has to determine the ownership of, not merely‘ relief * in the sense of that which the plaint expressly asks fox andthe decree expressly grants. ”
The Schedule of the Stamp Ordinance now in force is not different fromthat of the Ordinance of 1890. We are in respectful agreement withthat view.
In this action the plaintiffs sought to have their rights of way and watercourse from the common well to their agricultural plots, which the defen-dants obstructed and damaged, vindicated. The subject matter of theaction is the rights they sought to vindicate and the approximate value ofwhich they stated, as they are required to do by section 40 of the CivilProcedure Code, and not the damages they claimed. There is therefore adeficiency of stamp duty and the appeal is accordingly rejected with costspayable to the respondents.
de Silva, J.—I agree.
Appeal rejected.