1953 Supreme(Raj) 138

Rajasthan High Court
Wanchoo C.J. & Modi, J.
Ratanlal - Appellant
Versus
Daudas - Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No. 4 of 1951
Decided On : August 07, 1953

Headnote:(a) Stamp Act, Secs. 36 and 35—Document once admitted—Admission cannot be called into question—Admission is for all purposes and absence of words "acted upon" in sec. 36 does not debar court from passing decree on it—Provisions of Stamp Act primarily in interest of Govt. and not for deciding admissibility as between parties.(b) Civil P. C., O. 13, R. 4—Scope—Rule does not affect admissibility of document which depends on order of court — Where court admits document admission would be effective from date of order—Where document is so admitted on payment of any stamp duty and penalty, admission would be effective from date of such payment.(Para 32)(c) Stamp Act, Sec. 36—Scope—Section has nothing to do with right of appeal which is neither confers nor takes away.(d) Stamp Act, Sec. 36—Applicability—Section, only a law of procedure and applies when question of admissibility arises though suit filed before provision was made. (Para 39)

       Once an instrument has been admitted in evidence, either after judicial determination of the issue relating thereto, where such issue has been raised, or because no objection was taken to its admissibility, but not by pure mistake, such admission cannot be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground of insufficiency of stamp. (Para 29)

       The words "acted upon, registered, or authenticated," have not been used in sec 36. Their absence however is immaterial for the words in sec. 35 themselves show that an instrument can be admitted in evidence for any purpose and this would include the passing of a decree on its basis. (Para 16)

       The reason behind sec. 36 is clear. The provisions of the stamp law, by which unstamped or insufficiently stamped instruments are excluded, were never intended to create, or put an end to, the rights of the parties to the suit, but primarily in the interest of the Government revenue. It is perfectly immaterial as between the parties to a suit whether a certain instrument does or does not bear a certain mark which goes to show that the Government dues have been paid. The only thing, which is necessary to be seen as between the parties, is whether the instrument is genuine or not. Government revenue is protected by the provisions of sec. 51, and the legislature obviously intended that the question of admissibility of an instrument in evidence and the consequence following on such admissibility are only to be considered once, and if the instrument was once admitted in evidence that should put an end to all controversy on the question of sufficiency or insufficiency of stamp so far as parties in that suit were concerned. Sec. 36 was intended for this purpose, and by adopting the interpretation which is being urged on account of the absence of the words acted upon in sec. 36, we would not be carrying out the intention of the legislature. (Para 21)

       A document may be filed either as evidence or otherwise. Where it is filed as evidence, it is marked as an exhibit by the court or officer authorised to receive evidence. But it may be filed otherwise as for example as security by an appellant for costs to the respondent, or security by a judgment-debtor for obtaining stay of execution, or security by officers on their appointment as such for due discharge of their duties, or as a document presented before the sub-registrar for registration. It would not have sufficed to use only the words "admitted in evidence" in sec. 35 which provides for both contingencies. Therefore, sec. 35 uses not only the words admitted in evidence but other words also, namely acted upon, registered or authenticated. But sec. 36 deals with only one particular case, namely where the document is tendered as evidence. Therefore, the other words, namely acted upon, registered, or authenticated were not required in sec. 36, and the intention of the legislature was that such documents, once they have been admitted in evidence, should be used for all purposes for which evidence could be used and the admission should not be called in question on the ground of insufficiency of stamp at a later stage in the same proceeding. (Para 27)