ARUMUGHA PILLAI Vs. VADIVEL PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the judgment in O. S. No. 95 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif, Attur.

(2.) SHORT facts are: The revision petitioner has filed the suit against the respondent on the foot of a pronote. That was resisted by the respondent. After trial, the learned District Munsif had held that the suit pronote was insufficiently stamped and hence not admissible in evidence and when that was taken out of account, the suit claim cannot be sustained and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the plaintiff has come forward with this revision petition.

(3.) MR. S. P. Subramanian , would rely upon Warner v. Kochunarayana, A. I. R 1962 Ker. 265:1962 k. L. T. 228: (1962)1 Ker. L. R. 508:1962 Ker. LJ. 528:i. L. R (1962)2 Ker. 294. In this case, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court had held that once a court, rightly or wrongly decides to admit a document in evidence, so far as the parties are concerned, the matter is closed and the admission cannot be called in question at any stage of the suit or the proceeding on the ground that the instrument had not been duly stamped. In para 5, the learned Judges had laid as follows: "the words of the section are clear, and there can be no doubt that once a document has been admitted in evidence-as in this case-its admissibility cannot be questioned on the ground that it has not been duly stamped". Ma. Pwa. May v. Chettiar Firm, A. I. R. 1929 P. C. 279. The expression "admitted in evidence" means "let in as part of the evidence". To hold as the respondent wants us to do-that a document should not be considered as having been admitted in evidence unless the court has applied its mind to the question of admissibility from the point of view of the stamp law will involve an addition to the section of the words "after judicially considering the question of sufficiency of stamp" after the words "admitted in evidence, M. K. Lodhi v. Zia Ul haq, A. I. R. 1939 All. 588, with respect, I do not agree with this view of the kerala High Court, in view of the ruling of the Apex Court referred to supra.