C.B.CAPOOR
Balu Ram – Appellant
Versus
Dhangal Rum – Respondent
2. The petitioner admitted the execution of the pronote but denied having received the sum of Rs. 684/- in cash. His case was that the pronote was executed in lieu of past transactions.
3. The learned Subordinate Judge decreed the suit. An appeal was filed by the petitioner in the Court of the District Judge and in support of it an argument was advanced that the pronote in suit was insufficiently stamped and as such was inadmissible in evidence and no decree could have been passed on its basis. While the learned District Judge held that the pronote was insufficiently stamped, he repelled the aforesaid contention relying upon the provisions of Sec. 36 of the Indian Stamp Act and on a ruling of the Allahabad High Court rep
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.