(1.) IN this petition I am called upon to decide the question whether Ext. P-1 kurippu is admissible in evidence.
(2.) THE suit is for the balance due to the plaintiff from the defendant on account of dealings in cocoanuts. THE accounts between them were settled and on the 23rd November 1955 the kurippu was executed by the defendant. It reads as follows: " THE defendant denied the execution of the kurippu and also objected to its admissibility under S. 35 of the Stamp Act as it is a document requiring a stamp of one anna under Schedule I, Art-1 of the Stamp Act. THE learned Munsiff over-ruled the objection and admitted the document.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the plaintiff questions the competency of the revision because of the bar of S. 36 of the Stamp Act. S. 36 of the Stamp Act enjoins that: "where an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such admission shall not except as provided in S. 61, be called in question at any stage of the suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. " THE objection must prevail. Judicial opinion is uniform that once a document is admitted in evidence the admissibility of such a document cannot thereafter be called in question. Decisions have gone to the extent "that under S. 36 it matters nothing whether a document was wrongly admitted or rightly admitted or admitted without objection or after hearing or without hearing such objection"-vide Mebr Sardar v. Emperor-AIR. 1930 Calcutta 577. Again in Eopanna Prakasam v. Nagabhusaanam -[1938] II MLJ. 478 it was held that "s. 36 of the Stamp Act does not say that there must be judicial determination of the question whether a document has to be admitted in evidence. THE words "admitted in evidence" in the section would seem to have been deliberately used to avoid complicated enquiries regarding the admission of the documents". As noted earlier, in this case there is a judicial determination of the question whether the kurippu was to be admitted in evidence.