9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (4) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eneral and the Government Pleader, and we have had the benefit of their arguments. 2. The main contention of Mr. Kuppuswamy is that affidavits which do not come under the definition of S. 2(14) are not liable to stamp duty under S. 3, and the specific exemption under Art. 4 of the Act of Affidavits made for the immediate purpose of being filed in Court, which are required under O. 19, C.P.C. for proving any particular fact or facts, and which are not instruments within the meaning of S. 2(14), was only by way of abundant caution. 3. In order to understand this contention, we may read Ss. 2(14) and 3. They are in the following terms:- Section 2(14). 'Instrument' includes every document by which any right or liability is, or purports to be, created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or recorded. Section 3 . Subject to the provisions of this Act and the exemptions contained in the Schedule I, the following instruments shall be chargeable with duty of the amount indicated in that Schedule as the proper duty thereof, respectively, that is to say: (a) Every instrument mentioned in that Schedule which, not having been previously executed by any person, is executed in In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explanation of the meaning and is equivalent to mean and include . The learned Advocate-General, on the other hand, contends that the word includes must be considered in the context of the provisions of the Act, and generally has an extensive application, and while there may be cases in which a restricted application of that word may be given if the context permits, the word instrument in S. 2(14) cannot be given that restricted meaning. The learned Government Pleader, has tried to point out that in the several definitions, as in Ss. 2(13), 2(15), 2(16) and 2(17), the Legislature has used the word means and includes and includes , which demonstrates clearly that the draftsman has used these to import a particular content to the definition, so that it cannot be construed as being the intention of the Legislature when it used the word includes to mean means and includes. 6. In our view, the word includes as used in the interpretation of statutes connotes generally an extended meaning, as further adding, by including all those things that the definition declares that it should include, to the generic meaning of that word or to its natural import. The proper use of the definition is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pee in any other case. Article 442 is another example, which says that a notarial act, that is to say, any instrument, endorsement, note, attestation, certificate or entry not being a protest made or signed by a Notary Public, in the execution of the duties of his office or by any other person lawfully acting as a Notary Public, is liable to stamp duty of one rupee. Under Art. 53 receipt as defined by S. 2(23) for any money or other property the amount or value of which exceeds twenty rupees, is liable to stamp of ten naye paise. Section 2(23) defines receipt in so far as it is relevant thus: Receipt includes any note, memorandum or writing - (a) whereby any money, or any bill of exchange, cheque or promissory note is acknowledged to have received. The definition of receipt , though not covered by the inclusive definition of S. 2(14) is nonetheless treated as an instrument under Schedule I, which schedule is, by the Legislative Act, a part of the statute. These Articles support the hypothesis that an instrument as defined in S. 2(14) must be given an extensive meaning and is not restricted only to those documents which are specifically included in the definition. 9. In the light of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clause a species which does not naturally belong to it. 10. The learned Government Pleader has referred to certain observations in the dissenting judgment of Srivatsava, J., in Darbari Lal v. Dharma Wati, AIR 1957 All 541 (FB). But the interpretation of the word includes given by him is in consonance with the principle adumbrated in Dilworth's case, 1899 AC 99. 11. In Nasibun v. Preosunker Ghose ILR (1882) Cal 534, not cited before us, Field, J., speaking for the Bench of that Court while construing the word includes in the definition of bond given in the Stamp Act, 1869, said at p. 536: The argument addressed to us has turned upon this language only but we may observe that this language does not contain an exhaustive definition of the term bond . The word includes has an extending force, and does not limit the meaning of the term to the substance of the definition. In Tokendra Bir Singh v. Govt. of India, AIR 1964 SC 1663 , the word Ruler has been defined by Art. 366(22) of the Constitution of India as Ruler in relation to an Indian State means Prince, Chief, or other person by whom any such covenant or agreement as is referred to in Cl. (1) of Art. 291 was entered into and wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
