Back
K. SUBBA RAO, B. P. SINHA, J. R. MUDHOLKAR, RAGHUBAR DAYAL
Javer Chand – Appellant
Versus
Pukhraj Surana – Respondent
Key Points: - The two hundis were admitted in evidence and marked as Ex. P.1 and Ex. P.2, with the endorsement "Admitted in evidence" (affirming admissibility once admitted) (!) (!) . - Section 36 of the Stamp Act provides that once an instrument is admitted in evidence, its admissibility cannot be questioned on grounds of stamping, except as provided in Section 61; the court must decide stamping issues when tendered, and the admission cannot be reversed later (!) (!) . - The High Court erred by attempting to go behind the trial court’s admission of the documents; the Supreme Court restored the trial court’s decision and decreed in favor of the plaintiffs (!) . - The appellant’s challenge that the documents were unstamped and admissible only with stamping under Marwar Stamp Act provisions was not upheld because once admitted, the document cannot be reopened for stamping grounds (!) . - The judgment clarifies that a document once admitted, used in examination and cross-examination, cannot be rejected on stamping grounds later; admission is final for parties (!) (!) . - The Court held that the documents were properly proved and allowed the appeal, restoring the trial court’s decree with costs (!) (!) . - The decision discusses the onus on the defendant to prove unstamped nature and the procedure when stamping issues arise at the time of tender (!) (!) .
Judgment
SINHA, C.J.I. : The substantial question for determination in this appeal is whether or not the two hundis sued upon were admissible in evidence. The learned Trial Judge held that they were, and in that view of the matter decreed the suit in full with costs and future interest, by his judgment and decree dated September 26, 1952. On appeal, the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur, by its judgment and decree dated October 8, 1956* allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiffs suit. Each party was directed to bear its own costs throughout. The High Court granted the necessary certificate under Art. 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. That is how the appeal is before us.
* (See AIR 1957 Raj 47-Ed.)
2. It is only necessary to state the following facts in order to appreciate the question of law that has to be determined in this appeal. The defendant-responmdent is said to have owed money to the plaintiffs, the appellants in this case, during the course of their business as commission agents for the defendant, at Bombay. Towards the payment of those dues, the defendant drew two mudatti hundis in favouor of the plaintiffs, for the sum of 35 thousand rupees, one for 20 thousand rupees p
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
