PUSAPATI SUDHAKAR Vs. KOPPU VENKATA PRABHAKARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision raises a short, but important question of law.

(2.) The respondent filed O.S.No.75 of 1997, against the petitioner in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mzianagaram, for the relief of recovery of a sum of Rs.92,400/-, comprising of principal of Rs.60,000/-, and the interest at 18% per annum from 1 -8-1994 to 31-/-1997. The suit claim is based on a document dated 31-/-1994. During the course of the trial of the suit, the petitioner raised an objection, as to the admissibility of thedocument. According to him, it witnesses two transactions, viz., receipt of a sum of Rs.55,000/-, under a promissory note, dated 30-6-1994, and a fresh promissory note of lending a sum of Rs.60,000/-, and that it was not properly stamped. It was alleged that as against the stamp duty of Rs.1/-, for receipt, and 20 paise, for promissory note, stamps worth 40 paise alone were affixed. This objection as to the admissibility was rejected by the trial Court through its ordendated 3-/-2004. The respondent was permitted to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty. Hence, this revision.

(3.) Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instrument answers the description of the "receipt", under Entry 53, and of a "promissory note", covered by Entry 49 of the Schedule to the Indian Stamp Act (for short 'the Act'). He submits that the instrument was chargeable under Section 5 of the Act, with the aggregate amount of duties, payable for the said two transactions, and since it is not properly stamped, it is inadmissible in evidence. He contends that the trial Court committed an error in adjusting the stamp duty of 40 paise, towards the 25 paise, payable on a promissory note and permitting the respondent to pay the deficit stamp duty. He submits that such a course of action is impermissible in law, and the defect, as to insufficiency of stamp duty, on a promissory note, cannot be cured, in view of the prohibition contained in Section 35 of the Act. He places reliance upon the judgment of a Division Bench of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Kasturi Lal v. Bharat Finance Co.