SAMINENI SURAIAH Vs. BANDARUPPALI RAMAIAH
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
Narasimham, J. -
(1.) In this Second Appeal, the point for consideration is the scope
and ambit of section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (II of 1899) in relation
to an insufficiently stamped promissory note on the foot of which the appellant sued
(2.) The question arises thus : The appellant sued to recover Rs. 1,738-10-0 with
interest and costs on the foot of a promissory note executed by the respondent.
The promissory note bore four revenue stamps ; but at the time of execution only
two were cancelled by the respondent. An objection was taken by the respondent
in the written statement that the suit promissory note was insufficiently stamped
and as such was inadmissible in evidence under section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act.
During the trial, an objection was taken in that regard and the District Munsif
purported to mark it provisionally at an earlier stage. It would appear that later
the appellant filed an application, I.A. 6 of 1957 to direct the respondent to
cancel the uncancelled stamps or in the event of his faiure to do so, to permit the
appellant or his transferor to cancel the uncancelled stamps. The petition was
opposed on the ground that such a procedure was not warranted by the Stamp Act.
Notwithstanding the objection, the District Munsif directed the cancellation in
terms prayed for by the appellant. The respondent did not cancel the stamps but
the appellant did so as directed by the Court on 8th October, 1957. It would
appear that the order of the District Munsif was carried in revision to this Court
but without success.
(3.) At the trial on 14th November, 1957 the document was marked as Exhibit A-1
P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined by the plaintiff. Exhibits A-i to A-5 and B-i were
marked. Arguments were heard and the judgment was passed for the appellant on
18th November, 1957.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.