- (1.) There are three objections which have been urged: 1st, that the document was not stamped which is said to come under the general ground of appeal, that the Recorder has admitted evidence which he ought to have rejected, 2ndly, that the document has not been registered, which it is said also cornea under the same ground of appeal; and, 3rdly, that the Recorder has awarded excessive damages, the plaintiffs not being entitled to recover anything beyond nominal damages. I do not consider it necessary to decide, whether the objections that the document was not stamped or registered are admissible under the general ground of appeal that the Recorder has admitted evidence which he ought to have rejected, because it is not in my opinion made out that he did admit evidence which he ought to have rejected; but I am not at all prepared to admit that if the objection of want of registration would have rendered the document inadmissible in evidence, such objection could have been taken under this general ground of appeal, it never having been made a ground of objection before the Recorder. I am of opinion that, with regard to the want of stamp, it is not a ground for reversing the decision, because I think that the error, if any, of receiving the document without a stamp, did not affect the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court, although it might have affected the Government revenue.
(2.) In Munohur Lal v. Sheodyal Singh S.D. (1856) 62, it was held that the insufficiency of stamp formed DO ground for reversing the decision of a lower Court, under Act IX of 1854, which contained words similar to those of section 350 of Act VIII of 1859. In the case of Prankissen Pal Chowdhry v. Gridhur Ghose Mundul S.D. (1857). 1227, it was also held, that, as the lower Court had decided the case on the merits, the Judge was wrong under Act IX of 1854 in dismissing the plaintiff's claim on appeal, on the ground of inadequate stamp. So it has been held, that the wrong valuation of a suit, which does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court, does not affect the merits. If it affects the jurisdiction, it comes under the other portion of section 350. I believe that there are also cases in which the High Court has held to the same effect as the late Sudder Court, with regard to the want of stamps, but whether there are decisions of the High Court on this point or not, the decisions which I have already cited are so consistent with justice that I should feel myself bound to follow them.
(3.) The next question is, whether the want of registration renders this document inadmissible the memorandum refers to a promissory note for 20,000 rupees, and says: "For the above promissory note, the grant of the dockyard and office to be deposited in three days, and a proper agreement made out. The time of credit to be one year or eighteen months, the interest at Rs. 1-10 per cent. per mensem.";