Dismissed

A.Shya Ummal Abdul Azeez v. a.Ashya Ummal Pathummal

Kerala HC5 Nov 2009CRP/191/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision petition regarding a partition suit, the High Court of Kerala dismissed the appeal against the Munsiff Court's order directing the petitioner to pay stamp duty under Article 42(i) rather than the reduced rate under Article 42(c). The court held the order was proper.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; order directing payment of stamp duty under Article 42(i) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 upheld.

A.Shya Ummal Abdul Azeez Vs a.Ashya Ummal Pathummal — Partition | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931

¶5

CRP.No. 191 of 2006()

¶6

---------------------

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/12/2005 IN IA.3003/2001 IN OS.206/1997 of MUNSIFF COURT,ATTINGAL

¶8

REVN. PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

¶9

-----------------------------------------

¶10

A.ASHYA UMMAL ABDUL AZEEZ, BEENA HOUSE, F.C.I. ROAD, KATTUKULAM, KADINAMKULAM, KAZHAKUTTOM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/COUNTER PETITIONER/DEFENDANT:

¶13

-------------------------------------------

¶14

A.ASHYA UMMAL PATHUMMAL, THURUTHIYIL ODUKKATHU VILAKATHU VEEDU, AZHOOR VILLAGE, DO. DESOM.

¶15

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.

¶17

C.R.P.NO.191 OF 2006 (A)

¶18

Dated this the 5^th day of November, 2009

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Revision is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.206 of 1997 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Attingal. The above suit was one for partition, in which, a final decree has already been passed. Towards engrossing of the final decree in stamp paper the plaintiff presented a memo to receive the stamp value as under the proviso to Article 42 (c) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959. The court below under the impugned order directed him to pay the stamp duty as per Article 42 (i) of the above Act. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision.

¶21

The order of the court below directing the petitioner to pay stamp duty payable as under Article 42 (i) of the Stamp Act is proper and correct. The case of the petitioner that the

¶22

CRP.191/06

¶23

¶24

stamp duty payable for engrossing the final decree is under clause 'c' of the proviso to Article 42 (ii) of the Stamp Act is patently erroneous and it was rightly and correctly turned down by the learned Munsiff. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed.

¶25

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶26

prp

A.Shya Ummal Abdul Azeez v. a.Ashya Ummal Pathummal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Shya Ummal Abdul Azeez v. a.Ashya Ummal Pathummal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.K.Ragini Vs M.K.Mayavathi

George Joseph Vs Prasad Kumar

Cochin Export Processing Zone Vs M.T.J0LLY

Sunitha Rani Vs Sreekanth S.Nair

Shanmughan Vs Lakshmi and Others

The Secretary, Hosdurg Taluk Consumers Vs K.K.Vijayakumar and Others