VENKATA RAO Vs. T RAMAKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question under Section 36 of the Stamp Act arises for consideration in this Letters Patent Appeal which is preferred against the decision of our learned brother Jayachandra Reddy, J. in A. A. O. No. 212/75 dismissing it.

(2.) The question arises in the following manner. The respondent in this appeal filed a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 3,785 on a document which he claimed to be a promissory note. The defence set up by the appellants, who was the defendant in the suit, was among other things, that the suit promissory note was not supported by consideration. Then both sides adduced and completed their evidence. While adducing the evidence on the plaintiffs side, the document, which was the basis for the suit, was marked as Ex. A-1 after a witness proved it. The necessary endorsements as required by Rule 4 of Order 13, C. P. C. were made and the judicial officer initialled on it. Thus it came to be marked as an exhibit. After both sides thus completed their evidence, the present appellants filed an additional written statement raising a new point that the document was not a promissory note but was a bond and as such it was insufficiently stamped. His objection therefore was that the document was inadmissible in evidence. An additional issue was also framed on this aspect of the matter. Without going into the other merits or contentions of the parties, the trial Court held that the document was not a promissory note but a bond and was insufficiently stamped and for that reason it was inadmissible in evidence. In that view, it dismissed the suit. The plaintiff preferred an appeal to the District Court which allowed the appeal holding that under Section 36 of the Stamp Act the admissibility of the document as Ex. A-1 cannot be called in question since it had already been admitted. So, the appellate Court allowed the appeal and remanded the suit to the trial Court, for disposal on its merits. This time the defendant preferred A. A. O. No. 212/75 to this Court challenging this decision of the learned District Judge. Jayachandra Reddy, J. agreed with the lower appellate Court and dismissed the A. A. O. In his view, Section 36 would preclude the reopening of the question of admissibility of Ex. A-1 which had already been admitted in evidence.

(3.) Sri M. S. K. Sastry for the defendant- appellant presses this appeal on the ground that Section 36 of the Stamp Act has no application since when the document was originally marked as Ex. A-1 there was no conscious and judicial determination of the question. The Court mechanically marked the document as Ex. A-1 since there was no question of insufficiency of stamp before it at that time. Section 36 gives the benefit only when an instrument has been "admitted in evidence", and according to Sri Sastry, unless there is a conscious and judicial determination of the objection raised, it cannot be said that the Court has admitted a document in evidence. Since that was not done in this case, Section 36 does not come into operation.