AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 137 wordsWallis, C.J.—Following the decision in Kulwanta v. Mahabier Prasad ILR (1888) All. 16 (F.B.) . and Ref. case 19 of 1911 we hold that
the bond must be stamped both under the Court Fees Act and under Article 40 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act, as it comes within the definition of
a mortgage in Section 2(5) of the Indian Stamp Act, and Article 15 is therefore inapplicable. In Ref. case No. 9 of 1908 the the point that the
bond in question was a mortgage within the meaning of the definition does not appear to have been taken. In re The District Munsif of Tiruvallur
ILR (1911) Mad. 17 the bond, which was given by a judgment-debtor and two sureties does not appear to have been a mortgage bond and
consequently came within Article 15.