Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.- An interesting and important question of law arises in this matter of every day occurrence in this Court, viz., the stamp to be affixed to a personal bond executed in favour of Court. The learned counsel for Lala Gopikissen Gokuldass, who was directed to execute a bond for Rs.51,550 to the Registrar of this Court, in respect of the release of some diesel engines in O.S.A.No.121 of 1952 urges that as only a personal bond was directed though the amount of the bond was for Rs.51,550, only a Court-fee of As 8 under Article 6, Schedule II of the Court-Fees Act is payable, and not stamp ‘duty under Article 13 of the Indian Stamp Act, which will come to Rs.780 as contended by the office relying on a judgment of Krishnaswami Nayudu, J. Notice was given to the learned Government Pleader so that this important question of everyday occurrence, in this Court, may be settled. The learned Government Pleader relies on the judgment of Krishnaswami Nayudu, J., dated 10th August, 1050 in Application No.4190 of 1949 in C.S.No.576 of 1949, wherein the learned Judge-has held that in a security bond more or less like this a stamp duty under Article 13 of the Indian Stamp Act as well as the court-fee under Article 6 of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act would be payable but that the court-fee under Article 6 of Schedule II of the Court-Fees Act had been remitted by Government in G.O.No. 1732 dated 1st May, 1937, in the case of such bonds, and that only the stamp duty payable under Article 13 of the Indian Stamp Act would be payable. There a stamp for Rs.15 had been affixed by the plaintiff under Article 46 of Schedule I-A of the Amendment to the Stamp Act. It was held that Article 46 would not apply, and that Rs.120 stamp had to be affixed under Article 13. The Government Pleader after a perusal of the Government Order in question contends now that the exemption of the court-fee of As. 8 payable under Article 6 of the Court-Fees Act (Schedule II) only applies where immoveable property security is concerned, and that the exemption will not apply to personal bonds like this. The counsel for the applicant also agrees, and says that is because personal bonds are intended to be charged only a court-fee of As. 8 payable under Article 6 of the Court-Fees Act (Schedule II) only applies where immoveable property security is concerned, and that the exemption will not apply to personal bonds like this. The counsel for the applicant also agrees, and says that is because personal bonds are intended to be charged only a court-fee of As. 8 under Article 6 of Schedule II of the Court-Fees Act. There is force in this. In mufassal courts only 8 annas court-fee stamp is charged for such personal bonds under Article 6 of Schedule II of the Court-Fees Act. Under Article 13 of the Stamp Act the stamp duty provided for under that Article could be payable only on bonds not otherwise provided for by the Stamp Act or the Court-Fees Act and Article 6 of Schedule II of the Court-Fees Act does provide for stamp duty on bonds like this taken under the Code of Civil Procedure by a Court. Article 6 runs as follows: “Bail bond or other instrument of obligation given in pursuance of an order made by a Court or Magistrate under any section of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, or the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and not otherwise provided for in this Act.” Now, the bond in question here is admittedly an instrument of obligation given in pursuance of an order made by a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, and there is no other provision in the Court-Fees Act for such personal bonds. The learned Government Pleader had to concede this but prayed for a reference to a Bench as there is a conflict of views between Krishnaswami Nayudu, J. and myself on this point affecting Government revenues vitally. Krishnaswami Nayudu, J., in the judgment relied on by the learned Government Pleader has not considered the effect of the provision in Article 13 not being otherwise provided for by this Act or by the Court-Fees Act, 1870. Nor has he adverted to the recent Order II of the High Court-Fees Rules relating to the court-fees, where the Court-Fees Act is by implication made applicable to personal bonds which come under the omnibus category “other documents”. So this point cannot be deemed to have been adverted to or decided by him, though the bond he ruled on, and impounded, as urged by the learned Government Pleader, was a personal bond like this. So this point cannot be deemed to have been adverted to or decided by him, though the bond he ruled on, and impounded, as urged by the learned Government Pleader, was a personal bond like this. It is an elementary rule of our law that whenever there are two possible interpretations regarding financial obligations between State and subject, the interpretation or construction most favourable to the subject should toe preferred as urged by the learned counsel for Gokuldas. That is because the subject is in a helpless position as against the State. Indeed many of the persons who are asked to execute personal bonds are poverty-stricken individuals with no wealth or resources, and that is usually the reason why they are allowed to execute personal bonds instead of furnishing immoveable property security. It cannot also be said after the amendment of the High Court-Fees Rules in 1950 that the Court-Fees Act is not applicable to the Original Side. As the question is of every day occurrence and is of sufficient importance to be settled at once authoritatively by a Bench, and there is a conflict of view in essence between Krishnaswami Nayudu, J. and me on this point vitally affecting Government revenues, I do not want to deliver a judgment differing from the views of Krishnaswami Nayudu, J. and the current practice of this office and hold straightaway that only As. 8 will be leviable on this personal bond where the office and the Government Pleader have urged that stamps worth Rs.780 ought to be affixed under Article 13, but place the papers before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for constituting a Bench to try and dispose of this question speedily, as such cases occur every day. The learned counsel for the applicant says that the applicant is in a hurry to execute the bond and take the diesel engines, which are lying idle in the harbour and that he may be permitted to execute the bond with a stamp duty of Rs.780 under Article 13 of the Indian Stamp Act under protest reserving his right to claim a refund of the difference between that stamp duty and the As. 8 payable under Article 6 of Schedule II of the Court-Fees Act if the Bench agrees with the view I have expressed. I allow him to do so as the learned Government Pleader has absolutely no objection to it. 8 payable under Article 6 of Schedule II of the Court-Fees Act if the Bench agrees with the view I have expressed. I allow him to do so as the learned Government Pleader has absolutely no objection to it. All persons executing personal bonds hereafter in this court falling within the Civil Procedure Code may also pay the stamp due under Article 13 under protest till the Bench decision and claim a refund in case the Bench agrees with my view. This is to avoid delays in executing the bonds. In the circumstances, no orders as to costs. The matter came on for final orders before the Chief Justice and Venkatarama Ayyar, J., in pursuance of the reference aforesaid. Vepa P Sarathy for the Government Pleader for Appellant. V.C. Gopalaratnam and L.V. Krishnaswami for Respondent. Rajamannar, C.J.-In O.S.A.No.121 of 1952 Govinda Mehon and Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, JJ., passed an order on 28th April, 1953, directing inter alia the respondent in the appeal, Lala Gopikissen Gokuldass to furnish security in the shape of a guaranty of the Bank of Baroda for the payment of a sum of Rs.51,550. In accordance with this order, a personal bond was filed by the said Gokuldass in favour of the Registrar of this Court. The office of this Court raised an objection as to the proper stamp duty leviable on this personal bond. It was contended on behalf of the party that a court-fee of annas eight under Article 6 of the Schedule II of the Court-Fees Act was all that was payable, while it was contended on behalf of the office that the stamp duty under Article 13 of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act as amended in Madras was payable on the footing thai it would come within the definition of a bond in section 2(5) of the Stamp Act. The office also relied on a judgment of Krishnaswami Nayudu, J., in Application No.4190 of 1949 in C.S. No.576 of 1949. In that application, the learned Judge held that the proper stamp duty on a personal security bond similar to that with which we are now concerned would be that provided under Article 13 of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act as amended in Madras together with the court-fee under Article 6 of Schedule II of the Court-Fees Act. In that application, the learned Judge held that the proper stamp duty on a personal security bond similar to that with which we are now concerned would be that provided under Article 13 of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act as amended in Madras together with the court-fee under Article 6 of Schedule II of the Court-Fees Act. As, however, the court-fee under Article 6 of Schedule II of the Court-Fees Act had been remitted by the Government by their order G.O. No.1732, dated 1st May, 1937, the stamp duty payable under Article 13 was sufficient. The matter came up before Panchapakesa Ayyar, J. He was inclined to take a view different from that taken by Krishnaswami Nayudu, J. He considered that the attention of the learned Judge was not drawn to the material portion of Article 13 of Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act as amended in Madras. He therefore desired that a Bench should try and dispose of this question as the question occurred frequently. In our opinion, there is not much room for difference of opinion. It is common ground between Mr.V.C. Gopalaratnam, learned counsel for the party and the learned Government Pleader that the personal bond now in question and similar personal bonds under which immoveable property is not hypothecated would fall within the definition of “bond” under section 2(5) of the Indian Stamp Act. Article 13 of Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act as amended in Madras, in so far as it is material, runs thus:- “Bond as defined by section 2(5) not being a debenture and not being otherwise provided for by this Act or by the Court-Fees Act, 1870.” The contention of the learned counsel for the party is that a bond such as the bond in question is provided for by Article 6 of Schedule II of the Court-Fees Act. That Article is in the following terms: “Bail-bond or other instrument of obligation given in pursuance of an order made by a court or Magistrate under any section of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, or the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. and not otherwise provided for in this Act.” We agree with the learned counsel for the party that the order passed by Govinda Menon and Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, JJ., was an order made under the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Government Pleader did not contend otherwise. and not otherwise provided for in this Act.” We agree with the learned counsel for the party that the order passed by Govinda Menon and Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, JJ., was an order made under the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Government Pleader did not contend otherwise. The bond in question has been given in pursuance of an order made by this Court. Article 6 of Schedule II of the Court-Fees Act would, therefore, apply. It follows that Article 13 of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act (Madras) would not apply because that Article specifically says that it is only if a bond is not otherwise provided for by that Act or by the Court-Fees Act that the duty is leviable under that Article. Now that we have held that the bond in question is provided for by the Court-Fees Act, the conclusion inevitably follows that duty is not leviable under Article 13 of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act (Madras). If this part of Article 13 had been specially brought to the notice of Krishnaswami Nayudu, J., we have no doubt whatever that he would have taken the same view we are now taking. The decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Pichamma v. Pedamuneyya1 fully supports the view which we are taking. In that case, a defendant in a Small Cause Suit applied for setting aside an ex parte decree passed against him. Along with the application he filed a security bond executed by a surety for the due performance of the decree. The question was what was the proper stamp fee leviable on such a bond? It was held by the Full Bench that as the order setting aside the ex. parte decree was an order passed under the Civil Procedure Code and the bond was given in pursuance of an order of the court, it was sufficient if it was stamped under Article 6 of Schedule II of the Court-Fees Act and that it was not necessary that it should be stamped under Article 15 of the Stamp Act, corresponding to Article 13 of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act (Madras). The ratio decidendi of the Full Bench decision was that the Article of the Stamp Act, corresponding to Article 13 of Schedule I-A of Indian Stamp Act (Madras) does not apply if the Court-Fees Act applies. The ratio decidendi of the Full Bench decision was that the Article of the Stamp Act, corresponding to Article 13 of Schedule I-A of Indian Stamp Act (Madras) does not apply if the Court-Fees Act applies. We hold that the proper duty leviable on the bond in question is eight annas under Article 6 of Schedule II of the Court-Fees Act. R.M. ----- Order accordingly.