JANI MIYA Vs. KORIGINJA VARALA RAMESH
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
KORIGINJA (VARALA) RAMESH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)THE 1st respondent filed O. S. No. 59 of 2006 in the Court of Senior Civil judge at Jangaon, against the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, for recovery of certain amount. The trial of the suit commenced. The 1st respondent sought to rely upon a promissory note. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent raised objection as to the admissibility of the document, on the ground that it was not properly stamped. They pleaded that the 1st respondent had lifted a cancelled stamp from another document and pasted it on the suit promissory note. The second plea was that the signature on the stamp did not spread over to the document and in that view of the matter, there was no valid cancellation, as provided for under Section 12 of the Indian Stamp Act (for short 'the Act' ). Through its order, dated 31. 03. 2008, the trial Court overruled the objections, mainly relying upon the Judgment of this Court in Valluru China Lakshmi vs. Majji Dharma Rao. 2007 (6) ALT 69 Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.
(2.)LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court recorded a clear finding to the effect that the signature on the stamp did not extend to any portion of the paper and thereby, there was no valid cancellation of the stamp. He contends that the presumption provided for under sub-Section (2) of section 12 of the Act gets attracted and the document becomes inadmissible in law.
(3.)LEARNED counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that it is not necessary that the signature on a stamp must extend to any portion of the paper and any indication to the effect that the stamp was duly cancelled would be sufficient. He further submits that sub-Section (3) of Section 12 of the Act does not prescribe any procedure in this regard.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.