DOKKA JOGANNA Vs. UPADRASTA CHAYADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE controversy in this revision petition is whether the suit documents dated 22.5.1985 and 9.9.1985 styled as letters that were not stamped at the time of their execution are promissory notes as defined under Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and hence inadmissible in evidence by virtue of the provisions of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The facts that led to the controversy as set out in the impugned order are : The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S. No. 17/88 against the petitioner/defendant on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Razole, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,53,477.69 on the foot of two documents dated 22.5.1985 and 9.9.1985 styled as letters addressed by the petitioner to the respondent acknowledging the receipt of Rs. 57,560/- and Rs. 56,540/- respectively and agreeing to repay the same on demand. The original documents were filed into the Court alongwith the plaint. On the objection raised by the office that they are liable to be stamped, the respondent paid the requisite stamp duty and penalty. The petitioner, having received notice in the suit, filed a detailed written statement through his Counsel. In a political agitation that took place on 26.12.1988 the suit record and some other records of the Court were burnt by an unruly mob. However, the suit record was reconstructed. The suit was taken up for trial in the year 1996. When the Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff wanted to mark the photostat copies of the suit documents through P.W.1, the Counsel for the petitioner/defendant objected to their receipt and marking on the ground that they are promissory notes and hence inadmissible in evidence. The learned Subordinate Judge, having overruled the said objection, by order dated 14.8.1996, held that they are admissible and can be received in evidence. Hence, this revision petition by the defendant, namely, Dokka Joganna.

(2.) THE suit documents were written in Telugu. Their contents are almost identical except with regard to the date and the amount. It would be, therefore, enough to state the contents of one of the two documents. The translated version of document dated 22.5.1985 reads thus :

(3.) THERE is absolutely no dispute that proviso to Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 totally prohibits admission of an unstamped or insufficiently stamped promissory note in evidence even on payment of requisite duty together with penalty thereon. Section 36 of the said Act provides that :