CHELLAMMAL Vs. SIVASANKARAN CHETTIAR & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question for decision is whether the document sued on is a Promissory Note or a Bond. The court below held that it was a promissory note and hence not admissible in evidence as it was not properly stamped. The suit was accordingly dismissed. The plaintiff -petitioner contends that the document having been held to be a bond by the Collector who levied deficit stamp duty and penalty on such basis, the court was incompetent to go into the question. What happened in this case is that the court impounded the document and sent it to the Collector for appropriate action. The Collector treated the document as a Bond, levied the stamp duty and penalty and returned it to the court with a certificate that the stamp duty and penalty were collected. According to the petitioner the decision of the Collector is final and conclusive.

(2.) I am not inclined to accept this argument. Section 42 of the Travancore -Cochin Stamp Act under which the Collector issued the certificate substantially corresponds to section 40 of the Indian Stamp Act. Section 42(T. C. Act) reads as follows: