- (1.) THE circumstances that give rise to this revision under sec. 56 (1)of the Indian Stamps Act (II of 1899), (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) are that Johrilal, Raghunath Pershad applicants applied to the Collector, Sawai Madhopur on 3-9-1954 praying for the grant of a certificate under sec. 37 of the Act in respect of a hundi alleged to have been executed by Bhagwan Sahai etc. opposite party, on 18-1-1951. Objections were raised by the opposite party to the great of this certificate and after hearing the parties the learned Collector rejected the application on 19-10-1954 with the following observations - ". . . . . . . . . This application purports to be under sec. 37 of the Indian Stamp Act. THE Indian Stamp Act was adopted under sec. 2 of the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act of 1952. Under sec. 6 of this Act all laws and corresponding acts in force in any part of Rajasthan have been repealed. THE position now is that the Indian Stamp Act is applicable to Rajasthan but the rules contemplated under sec. 37 are not in force and as such this court has no jurisdiction to issue a certificate. It can not be said that the Indian Stamp Act has been adopted with rules because it does not contain only one set of rules but every State Government has framed its own rules. In the circumstances, I cannot entertain the application and issue the certificate. " Hence this revision.
(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties the Board, vide its order dated 3rd February, 1955 referred the case to the Hon'ble High Court of judicature for Rajasthan under sec. 57 of the Act for such orders as may be deemed necessary. It was observed by the Board that the Jaipur Stamps Rules. l946 are operative and hence the Collector was not justified in refusing to take action in accordance therewith. He had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law and hence a deserves to be issued to him to decide the case on its merits. The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature has accepted the reference and has forwarded a copy of its judgment. The relevant portion of which may be quoted as below - ". . . . . . . . . We are of the opinion that the view taken by the Board is correct, and does not require much authority in support of it. The first proviso to sec. 5 of the Rajasthan Act clearly saves the rules framed under the Jaipur Stamp Law till the Rajasthan State frames its own rules. The proviso is as follow: Provided that anything done or any action taken under any such law shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provision of the Indian Act, and shall continue to be in force accordingly unless and until superseded by anything done or taken under the corresponding provision of the Indian Act, and shall continue to be in force accordingly unless and until superseded by anything done or any action taken under (he Indian Act as hereby adapted to Rajasthan : - Now the Jaipur Rules were framed under the Jaipur Stamp Act. That was an action taken under the Jaipur Stamp Law. That action would now be deemed to have been taken under the corresponding provision of the Indian Act adapted to Rajasthan, namely sec. 75 of the Stamp Act, which gives power to the Government to make rules to carry out generally the purposes of the Act. Therefore, the rules framed under the Jaipur Stamp Act continue to be in force under the first provision to sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Act as having been framed under sec. 75 of the Indian Act as adapted to Rajasthan. The Collector, therefore, was not right in holding that the Jaipur rules were not in force, and he should have disposed of the application made to him under sec. 57 according to Jaipur Rules. The Board of Revenue, where the matter is now pending, is entitled to revise the order of the Collector, and to pass an order in conformity with the Jaipur Stamp Rules, and dispose of the application before it under its powers under sec. 56 (i) of the Stamp Act. " The case has come up today before us in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties for decision incompliance with the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan. Shri Rupchand has raised an objection before us on the ground that sec. 37 of the Act has no application to Hundis and Bills of Exchange and that as the Hundi was required to be written on an embossed or engrossed stamp paper, whereas the Hundi in question is written on a plain paper, certificate under sec. 37 of the Act cannot be issued in respect of it. We have no hesitation in observing that there is no substance in either of these contentions. The learned authors, Mulla and Pratt, in their commentary on the Act (1950 edition) have, while discussing the scope of sec. 35, observed that the privilege contemplated in this section is not admissible and the defect can not be cured in cases where instruments are chargeable with a duty of one anna or half anna or in case of bills of exchange or promissory notes. This is obviously based on the express phraseology of the proviso (a) of the section itself. This can not be read so as to govern the previsions of sec. 37 as well. Sarve Shri Chitley and Rao in their learned commentary on the Indian Stamp Act (1951 edition) on sec. 37 of the Act have observed (P. 420) as follows - "it will be seen that under this section any instrument can be validated by the Collector. Thus an instrument which is chargeable with the duty of one anna or half anna or bill of exchange or promissory note can be certified to be duly stamped under this section, unlike the position under sec. 32 and 35 which excludes these instruments from their purview. " As regards the other objection it may be observed that rule 4 (i) (a) of the Jaipur Stamp Rules, 1946, runs as follows : - "hundi, other than Hundi which may be stamped with an adhesive stamp under sec. 11, shall be written on the paper as follows : - Hundi payable otherwise than on demand but not more than one year after date or sight and for amount not exceeding Rs. 30,000/- in value shall be written on paper on which a stamp of proper value bearing the word 'hundi' has been embossed or engrossed. The contention raised by Shri Rupchand Sogani is that the paper which could have been legally used for writing the Hundi can be only that paper of which a stamp of the proper value bearing word 'hundi' has been embossed or engrossed and as such Hundi in the present case can not be said to bear the stamp of sufficient amount but of improper description. Sec. 10 of the Act prescribes the general rule as to the modes of paying the duties chargeable under this Act. It is laid down therein that all duties with which any instrument is chargeable shall be paid by means of stamp described in the section. These stamps may be impressed stamps, coloured impressions, impressed ables, adhesive stamps and special adhesive stamps. Impressed stamps are papers issued by Government on which stamps of various denominations are engrossed or embossed. They are of two types according as they bear the word 'hundi' or not. As observed by Sarve Shri Chitley and Rao at page 421 in the edition referred to above a Hundi payable otherwise that on demand but not more than one year after date or sight and not exceeding Rs. 30,000/- in value, is required to be written on a stamp paper not bearing the word 'hundi' and if it not so written but is written on a stamp paper not bearing the word Hundi or if adhesive stamp is affixed to it, is a case of "stamp of improper description" within the meaning of sec. 37 of the Act. In the present case it will be found that the Hundi is written on a plain sheet of paper with 19 one anna Indian revenue stamps affixed to it. It has also been established clearly in the case that at the time of the execution of these Hundies, the Jaipur Government did not issued Hundi stamp papers as laid down in the Act. The case is, therefore, clearly covered Sec. 37 of the Act. It was also argued by Shri Rupchand Sogani that the Board should not decide the point itself but should remand the case back to the Collector for decision on merits. In the first place this course would mean nothing except prolonging the issue and protraction. Secondly, it would be contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan. The learned judges have made it clear that on receipt of their judgment,the Board of Revenue where the matter is now pending is entitled to revise the order of the Collector and to pass an order in conformity with the Jaipur Stamp Rules and dispose the application before it under its powers under sec. 56 (i) of the Stamps Act. The applicants, for reasons pointed out above, are entitled to be granted a certificate under sec. 37 of the Act on payment of the duty with which the instrument in question is chargeable. We, therefore allow this revision, set aside the order of the Collector Sawai Madho-pur and remand the case back to him with the direction that the instrument in question, on payment of the duty with which it is chargeable, by certified bo endorsement that it is duly stamped under rule 19 of the Jaipur Stamp Rules, 1946 read with sec. 37 of the Act. . ;