Certified copies of original deeds do not come within the scope of Section 36 of the Stamp Act.

( 1 ) THE subject matter of this appeal lies within a very limited compass, viz. , whether the certified copy of a certain deed, the original of which is lost and untraced and which was insufficiently stamped, can be admitted in evidence and used by the plaintiff-appellant.

( 2 ) IN order to understand how this controversy, which is a controversy on a pure question of law, has arisen between the parties it will be necessary to set out only the following facts about which there is no dispute. One Anandamoyee Sarkar who was mother of Chinmoyee Bakshi, plaintiff in the Trial Court and appellant of this appeal, was the owner of certain collieries, and as she had financial difficulties in running them, she took financial and other assistance from her daughter, the plaintiff, who set up plants and machineries in the collieries and was admitted as a partner of her mother in the colliery business. A deed of partnership was accordingly executed by the parties on the 11-12-1937. The partnership was subsequently dissolved by an agreement for dissolution of the partnership executed by the mother and the daughter on 13-3-1938.

( 3 ) THE principal terms of this deed for dissolution of partnership were the following: First, in lieu of the dissolution Rs. 20,000/- was to be paid to Chinmoyee out of which Rs. 10,000/- was paid at the time of the execution of the deed of dissolution and the balance of Rs. 10,000/- was to be paid within three months from that date. Secondly, the colliery property of the mother was kept in charge as security for payment of the above sum of Rs. 10,000/ -. It was further agreed between the parties that by payment of the sum of Rs. 10,000/- a hand-note which Anandamoyee had executed in favour of plaintiff's husband would become satisfied.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff's case was that the above sum of Rs. 10,000/- was not paid. She accordingly instituted the present suit in the Trial Court for recovery of the money with interest according to the terms of the deed of dissolution of the partnership.

( 5 ) ANANDAMOYEE having died before the institution of the suit, her son Asokemohan Sarkar and another daughter Renubala Biswas were made defendants Nos. 3 and 4 in the Trial Court. Asokemohan having died during the pendency of the suit in the Trial Court his heirs were substituted in his place as defendants Nos. 3 (a) to 3 (c ).

( 6 ) DEFENDANT No. 2, New Birbhum Coal Co. Limited, was made a party on the allegation that it had acquired an interest in the colliery property subsequent to the execution of the deed of dissolution of partnership, and defendant No. 1 Raja Kalyani Prosad Singh Deo was made a party because he was going to put a decree to execution which was likely to affect the charge of the plain-tiff prejudicially.

( 7 ) VARIOUS defences were taken in the Trial Court by various sets of defendants which need not be considered in detail here. The plaintiff relied on the deed of dissolution of partnership, dated 13-3-1948, for the success of her claim. She was not in a position to produce the original deed because it was stated to be lost or untraced. A certified copy of the deed was produced in the Trial Court in lieu of the original document. The learned Subordinate Judge held "upon the objection of some of the defendants that the original document was insufficiently stamped, and so the certified copy was not admissible in evidence for proving the plaintiff's claim, and in this view of the matter, the suit was dismissed by him. So the plaintiff has preferred this appeal.

( 8 ) THE appeal is now being resisted by defendant No. 2, New Birbhum Coal Co. Ltd. , and by the heirs of Asokemohan Sarkar who have entered appearance separately.

( 9 ) MR. Das appearing on behalf of the appellant urged three contentions before us.

( 10 ) IN the first place, Mr. Das contended that the document on which the plaintiff's claim was founded was in substance and effect an agreement for dissolution of partnershi