Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.SATYANARAYANA RAJU
Nagala Dinne Erranna - Appellant
Versus
Angadi Modappa - Respondent
Decided On : 03-15-63
STAMP ACT - SECTION 35, 37, 42(1), 38(1), 38(2) - PROMISSORY NOTE - IMPROPER STAMP - VALIDATION - COLLECTOR'S CERTIFICATE - CONCLUSIVENESS - CIVIL COURT'S JURISDICTION TO REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
A suit was filed on the basis of a promissory note. The defendants pleaded that the promissory note was not valid and enforceable in law as it was not properly stamped. The trial court held that the document was valid as it was certified to be duly stamped by the Collector.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Collector's certificate was not conclusive and could be reviewed by the civil court. The court further held that the promissory note was not admissible in evidence as it was not duly stamped.
Issues: Whether the Collector's certificate of due stamping is conclusive and cannot be reviewed by the civil court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Collector's certificate of due stamping is not conclusive and can be reviewed by the civil court. The court further held that the promissory note was not admissible in evidence as it was not duly stamped.
Final Decision: The court set aside the finding of the lower court and allowed the revision petition.
( 1 ) THIS Revision Petition is directed against a finding of the Court of Dt. Munsif Adoni, on a preliminary issue in a suit instituted on the foot of a promissory note.
( 2 ) THE 1st respondent instituted a suit for recovery of certain sum of money on the foot of a promissory note. The present petitioner and his brother (the defendants in the action) pleaded inter alia that the suit promissory note, not having been properly stamped, was not admissible in evidence. There were other pleas taken by the defendants. But as this plea that the srit promissory note is not valid and is not enforceable in Jaw would, if held, in favour of the defendants render the trial of the other issues unnecessary, it was taken up as a preliminary issue. On a consideration of the various contentions raised before him, the Munsif held that the document, having been certified to be duly stamped by the Collector, is valid and found issue No. 2 in favour of the plaintiff.
( 3 ) FOR a proper appreciation of the question which arises for consideration in this revision petition, it is necessary to read the relevant provisions of the Indian Stamp Act. Section 35, which pro-vides that instruments not duly stamped are inadmissible in evidence, reads as follows :- "no instruments chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped: Provided that -- (a) any such instrument not being an instrument chargeable with a duty not exceeding, ten naye Paise, only, or a bill of exchange or promissory note, shall, subject to all just exceptions, be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable or, in the case of an instrument insufficiently stamped, of the amount required to make up such duty together with a penalty of five rupees or, when ten times the amount of the proper duty or deficient portion thereof exceeds five rupees, of a sum equal to ten times such duty or portion. "
( 4 ) SECTION 35 provides that no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose. It was held by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Ram Rattan v. Parma Nand, AIR 1946 PC 51, that the words "for any purpose" should be given their natural meaning and effect and would include a collateral purpose. Proviso (a) to Section 35 allows subsequent stamping on payment of penalty which is subject to a minimum of rupees five. If the deficit duty and penalty is paid, the Court admits it and certifies it under Section 42 (1) and sends an authorised copy to the Collector under Section 38 (1 ). If the duty and penalty is not paid, the Court refuses to admit the instrument and sends the original to the Collector under Section 38 (2 ). In the ease of instruments, bearing stamps of proper amount but of improper description, the Court, instead of levying duty and penalty, may adjourn the case and give the party an opportunity of getting the mistake rectified by the Collector acting under Section 37 and Rule 18. This privilege is not admissible and the defect cannot be cured in three cases, viz. , (i) instruments chargeable with a duty of ten naye paise; (ii) bills of exchange, whatever be the amount of duty with which they are chargeable, and (iii) promissory notes, whatever be the amount of duty with which they are chargeable.
( 5 ) SO far as the present instrument is concerned, the finding of the tower Court is that it satisfied the definition of a promissory note and must, therefore, be duly stamped. The lower Court has, however, held that as the plaintiff had paid the penalty and obtained an endorsement from the Collector, the defect, if any, has been cured.
( 6 ) SECTION 37 of the Indian Stamp Act empowers the State Government to make rules providing that where an instrument bears a stamp of sufficient amount b
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.