A document written on a stamped paper of Rs. 5/- satisfies the definition of 'receipt' as defined in Sec. 2(23) of the Stamp Act and stamped in accordance with Article 53 of the Act is duly stamped and is entitled to be received in evidence, though subject to proof and relevance.

1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 6-7-1995 in I.A. No.

316 of 1995 in O.S. No. 456 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif, Valangaiman at Kumbakonam. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner.

2. The petitioner filed the suit O.S. No. 456 of 1992 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,590/- alleging that on the morning of 19-10-1989, the respondents borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from her as hand loan at Nachiarkoil and on that evening they executed a voucher in a non-judicial stamp paper of the value of Rs. 5/- in evidence of the same end as an acknowledgment of the amount received from the petitioner, repayable together with interest at 12% per annum on demand. Since the respondents have not paid th e amount in spite of repeated demands, the petitioner issued a notice to the respondents calling upon them to pay the entire amount due. The said notice was returned with the endorsement “Left India”. The suit was thereupon filed for the recovery of the principle amount of Rs. 10,000/- due under the voucher given by the respondents on 19-10-1989 together with interest at 12% per annum, in all amounting to Rs. 13,590/- with subsequent interest.

3. The suit was resisted by the respondents. They denied the execution of any document on 19-10-1989 much less a voucher and that the petitioner is not entitled to claim the same on the basis of the said document.

4. The petitioner filed I.A. No. 316 of 1995 praying that the question viz. , the admissibility of the voucher dated 19-10-1989 as a document on the side of the petitioner, be tried as a preliminary issue before proceeding further in the conduct of the trial of the suit. In the affidavit filed in support of that petition, the petitioner had stated that the respondents on the morning of 19-10-1989 received as hand loan a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and in evidence of the same had executed a voucher on the same evening. It was further alleged that the trial of the suit was taken up, that the petitioner was being examined to prove her case, that in the course of her adducing evidence, the voucher stated to have been executed by the respondents was sought to be marked, that the same was objected to by the respondents on the ground that the document in question is not admissible and that therefore, the question of admitting or otherwise of the document be tried as a preliminary issue.

5. The respondents filed their counter to the said petition and contended therein that the document in question is treated as a promissory note, that the same is to be rejected as it is not properly stamped, that if the document is treated as a hand loan, necessary stamp duty has to be paid and that therefore, the document cannot be marked as it is not permissible in evidence.

6. The learned District Munsif held that since as per Sec. 91 of the Evidence Act and Sec. 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the transaction between the petitioner and the respondent in respect of the hand loan of Rs. 10,000/- not having been supported by a promissory note and the same not having been produced before Court, the document in question dated 19-10-1989 though written on a five rupee stamp paper is a substitution for the promissory note cannot be accepted. The trial court further held that the recitals in the document do not reveal that it is a voucher or a receipt and that therefore, the same cannot be received in evidence. Questioning the correctness of the said order, the petitioner has preferred the above revision.

7. It could be seen from the plaint allegations that the petitioner had stated that the respondents had borrowed as hand loan a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on the morning of 19-10-1989 and on that evening, a voucher had been executed on a Rs. 5/- non-judicial stamp paper to evidence the borrowing and to acknowledge the receipt of money. Thus, the case as pleaded by the petitioner is, that the document in question is a voucher.

8. The term ‘voucher’ as defined in