IMPORTANT POINT
Where an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such admission shall not be called in question on the ground that instrument has not been duly stamped.

Abhay M. Naik, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the defendant/appellant against a money decree granted against him by the Trial Court for a sum of Rs.l,55,000 with interest from the date of suit @ 9% p.a.

2. Plaintiff instituted a suit against defendant with allegations that the defendant acknowledged on 10.07.1993 to have received Rs.1,55,000 from the plaintiff vide written agreement. Money was repayable in monthly installments of Rs.1,000 with an agreement that on receipt of payment from the GPF, he would refund the entire money. Defendant is employee of police department. He did not make payment of installment, but assured that he would return the entire money on receipt of money from the head of GPF. Plaintiff made a complaint on 14.9.1993 to the Deputy Inspector General of Police in writing. Plaintiff was asked to institute civil suit, hence the same for recovery of Rs.1,55,000 towards principal amount plus Rs.45,390 towards interest, after issuing notice dated 18.8.1994 by registered A/D.

3. Defendant/appellant submitted his written statement denying inter alia the claim of the plaintiff. He denied to have borrowed any amount from the plaintiff. Execution of the alleged agreement dated 10.7.1993 was also denied. Instead, it has been pleaded that the plaintiff forcibly obtained the signature of defendant on plain stamp paper on 10.07.1993, which was reported to Police Station Janakganj. Since, defendant did not owe any amount to the plaintiff, there was no question of making promise to repay the same, after receipt of amount from GPF.

4. Learned Trial Judge after recording the evidence granted a decree to the tune of Rs.1,55,000 with interest pendente lite @ 9% p.a. till realisation. Aggrieved by it, plaintiff has submitted the present Appeal.

5. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the case of the plaintiff is not proved, at all. Defendant denied his signature and therefore, learned Trial Judge ought to have exercised powers under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

6. On perusal, it is found that in paragraph 1 of written statement, it has been stated that the plaintiff obtained signature of the defendant forcibly on plain stamp paper on 10.7.1993. Though, in the statement on oath, defendant has stated that his signature was obtained on plain paper, his version is not liable to be accepted in the light of the specific pleadings that he has put his signature on plain stamp paper on 10.7.1993. The agreement dated 10.7.1993, setup by the plaintiff is Ex.P1. It has been attested by two witnesses. Plaintiff has proved Ex.P1 by his own statement as well as by the statement of attesting witnesses, namely, Anil Vijayvargiya (PW2) and R.S. Gupta (PW3).

7. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramibai v. Life Insurance Corporation of India 1981 JLJ 388 has observed the following with regard to proof of the document:

“….Before we proceed to dwell upon the evidence relating to the proof of the signature of the deceased on these deeds, it would be pertinent to point out that these deeds do not fall into the category of those documents which by law are required to be attested and, therefore, for the proof of these deeds Section 68 of the Evidence Act would not apply. It is Section 67 which would apply. Section 67 does not lay down any particular mode of proof for proving that a particular writing or signature is in the hand of a particular person. Thus, the signatures may be proved in any one or more of the following modes:

(i) By calling a person who signed or wrote a document;

(ii) By calling a person in whose presence the documents are signed or written;

(iii) By calling handwriting expert;

(iv) By calling a person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom the document is supposed to be signed or written;

(v) By comparing in Court, the disputed signature or handwriting with some admitted signatures or writing;

(vi) By proof of an admission by the person who is alleged to