THE MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE versus ARTHUR PAUL BENTHALL.

Citation: [1955] 2 S.C.R. 842 · Decided: 04-10-1955 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1955 
Odobtr 4. 
842 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
THE MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE 
v. 
ARTHUR PAUL BENTHALL. 
(l955J 
(S. R. 
DAs. 
AcTING 
C. J., 
BHACWATI, 
VENKATARAMA 
AYYAR, JuER IMAM and 
CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ.J 
The Indian Stamp Act (II of 1899), ss. 5 and 6-Expression 
"disti11;t matters" in s. 5 and "description" in s. 6-I-Vhethe1 hav~ 
diffe1·ent connotations-Instrument in question-Whether comprised 
distinct tnatters. 
· 
Held per S. R. DAs, 
AcTINC C. J., 
VENKATARAMA 
AYYAR, 
J.\FER 
l~:iAM 
and 
CttANDRASEKHARA 
AIYAR 
JJ. 
(BH1\GWATI 
J. 
r'issenting) the contention that the word "matter" in s. 5 of the 
l ndian Stamp Act was intended to convey the sarne n1eaning as the 
word "description" in s. 6 is \Vithout force. In its popular sense, 
the expression "distinct matters" would connote something different 
from distinct "categories''. 'fwo transactions might be of the san1e 
description, but all the same, they might be distinct. 
When two words of different import are used in a statute in 
two consecutive provisions, it cannot be maintained that they are 
used in the same sense and therefore the expression 
'~distinct 
matters" in s. 5 and "description" in s. 6 have different connota-
tions. 
It is settled law that when two persons 101n in executing a 
power of attorney, whether it comprises distinct matters or not will 
depend on whether the interests of the executants 
in the subject 
matter of the power are separate or not. Conversely, if one person 
holding properties in two different capacities, each unconnected with 
the other, executes a power in respect of both of then1, the instru-
ment 
should logically be 
held to 
comprise 
distinct 
rnatters. 
Held, that the instrument in question, Exhibit A,-the power of 
attorney-comprised distinct matters within the meaning of s. 5 of 
the Indian Stamp Act in respect of several capacities of the respon* 
dent mentioned therein. 
Per BttAGWATI J. (dissenting).-The fact that the donor of the 
power of attorney exe<_:utes it in different capacities is not sufficient 
to constitute the instrument, one comprising distinct inatters and 
thus requiring to be stamped with the aggregate amount of the duties 
with which separate instruments each comprising or relating to one 
of such matters would be chargeable under the Act, within the mean* 
ing of s. 5 of the Indian Stamp Act. 
The instrument in question, Exhibit A, does not <umpr.~sc dis-
tinct matters but comprises one matter only and that matter is the 
execution of a general power of attorney by the donor in favour of 
2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
843 
the donees constituting the donees his attorneys to act for him in 
all the capacities he enjoys. 
It is within the very nature of_ the general power of attorney 
that all the distinct acts which the donor is capable of performing 
are comprised in one instrument which is executed by him and 
therefore whatever acts the donor is capable of performing whether in 
his individual capacity or in his representative capacity as trustee 
or as executor or administrator are also comprised within the instru-
ment and are not distinct matters to be dealt with as such so as to 
attract the operation of s. 5 of the Indian Stamp Act. 
Secretary, Board of Revenue, Madras v. Alagappa Chettiar 
I.L.R. [1937] Mad. 553, Ansell v. Inland Revenue Commissioners 
[1929] 1 K.B. 608, Reversionary Interest Society v. Commissioners of 
Inland Revenue [1906] 22 T.L.R. 740, Davis v. Williams 
[1804] 
104 E.R. 358, Bowen v. Ashley [1805] 127 E.R. 467, Goodson v. 
Forbes 11815] 128 E.R. 999, Freeman v. Commissioners of Inland 
Revenue [1870-71] L.R. 6 Exch. 101, Allen v. Morrison [1828] 108 
E.R. 1152, Reference under Stamp Act, s. 46, [ 1886] l.L.R. 9 Mad. 
358, Reference under Stamp Act, s. 46, f1891] l.L.R. 15 Mad. 386, 
Reference under Stamp Act, s. 46, [1892] 2 M.L.J. 178, and Vidya 
Varuthi v. Balusami, 48 I.A. 302, referred to. 
C1v1L 
APPELLATE 
JuR1smcnoN : 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 159 of 1954. 
Appeal hy Special Leave from the Judgment and 
Order dated the 27th day of June 1952 of the Calcutta 
High Court in Matter No. 214 of 1951-A reference 
under s. 57 of the Indian Stamp Act. 
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General of India (B. Sen 
and P. K. Bose, with him) for the appellant. 
S. Chaudhury, (S. N. Mukherjee, B. N. Ghosh and 
A. K. Basu, with him) for the respondent. 
1955. October 4. 
VENKATARAMA 
AYYAR 
J.-This 
appeal raises 
a 
question under section 5 of the Indian Stamp Act II 
of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.