KASPA RAMBABU Vs. YEDIDA GURUMURTY AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Yedida Gurumurty And Others
Click here to view full judgement.
RAMACHANDRA RAO,J. -
(1.)This Second Appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,874,87 Ps., filed by the appellant against the respondents herein. The Plaintiff alleges that he was a transferee of a promissory note for consideration from the 3rd defendant. It is necessary to refer to the various defences raised in suit in as much as both the courts below dismissed the suit on a preliminary objection raised by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 that the suit promissory note was not admissible in evidence being not properly stamped. The promissory note bears 4 Revenue Stamps of the denomination of one anna, but by the date of execution of the promissory note the decimal system of coinage and Stamps came into force throughout India and the provisions of the Indian Stamp Amendment Act 19 of 1958 came into effect on 1-10-1958. A promissory note is included in the list of documents in Schedule 1 of the Indian Stamp Act. As the promissory note is of the value of more then Rs. 1,000/- It should be affixed with a stamp worth four annas. After the Introduction of the decimal system the promissory note should beat a stamp of 25 paise. Unfortunately for the plaintiff the promissory note was affixed only with four one-anna labels and not with a four-anna label. Under section 77 A as amended by Act 19 of 1958, "?all stamps in denominations of annas four or multiple thereof shall be deemed to be stamps of the value of twenty five paise, or, as the case may be, multiple thereof and shall, accordingly, be valid for the purposes of this Act. Relying on the aforesaid provision, the defendants contended that the promissory note should have been affixed with a four-anna label and not four one-anna labels and that the four one-anna labels cannot be equated to the value of 25 paise. This contention of the defendants was accepted by both the Courts below and the suit was dismissed. Hence the Second appeal.
(2.)Sri Kodandarmayya; the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the view taken by the lower court is erroneous and that the interpretation placed by the lower court on section 77-A is also not correct. He further contends that the State Government issued a notification in G.O. Ms. Nos. 1060 dated 2-6-1959 amending the Indian Stamp Rules in force in the State of Andhra Pradesh and further directing that the amendment made shall be deemed to have come into force on 1st April 1959. Relying on this he contends that the suit promissory note having been executed on 13-5-1959, the old stamps continued to be valid and that the promissory note bearing the four anna stamps cannot therefore, be said to be improperly stamped and that the notification could not be given retrospective effect so as to invalidate the document which was already executed prior to the issue of the said notification. I am relieved of the necessity of considering in detail the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel in view of a recent pronouncement of a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Gopal Rao Ekbote and Venkateswara Rao J.J., in Civil Revision No. 613 of 1964 dated 8-11-1968. Exactly the same question arose in the said case and the very same contentions were raised, and the learned Judges held that after the coming into force of the new decimal system, the suit promissory note was not duly stamped within the meaning of section 2 (11) and was inadmissible in evidence. This decision is binding on me. Sri Kodandaramayya, however, contends that this decision requires re-consideration. But I am unable to agree with this submission in as much as the learned Judges have considered the very same question and construed the relevant provisions and came to the conclusion that in similar circumstances, the promissory note was not duly stamped. As the ruling is binding on me, I respectfully follow the same. The Second Appeal therefore fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case leave is granted. There will be no order as to costs. Second Appeal dismissed.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.