AHMED PILLAI MEERA SAHIB Vs. SANKARAN MADHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of the amount under a promissory note. Issues 3 to 5 dealt with the question whether the promissory note was properly stamped and whether it was admissible in evidence. The learned Munsiff heard these as preliminary issues and held against the plaintiff. The revision is directed against the findings on these issues.

(2.) Shri. Subramonian Potti did not canvass the correctness of the view taken by the Munsiff and he rightly conceded that that would not properly arise in revision. The point urged was that at an earlier stage of the suit, the document had been admitted in evidence and that the court therefore had no jurisdiction to decide the question afresh.

(3.) A similar question arose for decision in Kannu Asan v. The Travancore Forward Bank Ltd. ( 1956 KLT 203 ). My learned brother Sankaran, J. held that before this objection could be raised, the document should have been admitted in evidence in conformity with the provisions of O.13, R.4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This rule enjoins a duty on the court admitting a document in evidence to endorse thereon, among other things, a statement that the document has been admitted in evidence. The Privy Council stressed the importance of such an endorsement in Sadik Hussain Khan v. Hashin Ali Khan ( AIR 1916 PC 27 ). Sankaran, J. has also adopted the view taken by the Madras High Court in Venkanna v. Parasuram ( AIR 1929 Mad. 522 ) and Sri Yerri Swami v. Vannurappa ( AIR 1949 Mad. 300 ). Shri. Potti brought to my notice a decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in Lodhi v. Zia ul Haq AIR 1939 All. 588, where a contrary view was taken viz., that S.36 of the Stamp Act did not warrant the conclusion that the section had application only in cases in which the court had admitted the document after consciously applying its mind to the question of admissibility. It was held that if no objection regarding admissibility was raised before the document was admitted in evidence, such objection could not subsequently be raised. It is seen from the report that a document had been admitted in evidence and the proper endorsement regarding such admission had been made by the Trial Court. The objection regarding admissibility was raised for the first time at the stage of final hearing. The facts here are different. The defendant had raised the objection regarding the admissibility of the document in the written statement. There is no proper endorsement of admission in evidence, so that it cannot be said that the document was ever admitted in evidence. The Nagpur High Court in Sitaram v. Thakurdas ( AIR 1919 Nag. 141 ) held that unless the Court admitted a document not properly stamped after applying its mind consciously to the question whether the document was admissible or not the document could not be deemed to have been admitted in evidence. In Ratanlal v. Dandas (AIR 1954 Raj. 173) this question arose for decision before the Rajasthan High Court. After reviewing practically the whole case law on the subject, Wanchoo, C.J., observed,