(THAKUR) RANJITSINGH Vs. BEHRAUJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A pronote was produced in evidence in the Court of the Civil Judge, First Class, Mhow. The promote was not on impressed stamp but was on four annas revenue stamp of Government of India. The Defendant objected diat it was not duly stamped and should not be taken in evidence. The Plaintiff tool it to the Collector who, under Section 36 of the Indore Stamp Act (which corresponds to Section 37 of the Indian Stamp Act), alter payment of tins duly, coitiliod it to be duly, stamped. The Court below then, admitted it in evidence. The Defendant has come in revision against this order and urges that the Collector had no jurisdiction to certify it and that the Court had no jurisdiction to admit it in evidence as it was an invalid document.

(2.) MR . Garg relies on Ref. under Section 57 of Act No. 2 of 1899,, ILR 23 All 213 (A): a Full Bench case. But I think after the observations of the Privy Council in Ma Pwa May v. Chettiar Firm, 56 Ind App 379: ( : AIR 1929 PC 279) (B) the Allahabad view expressed in ILR 23 All 213 (A) must be taken to have been overruled, Their Lordships observed:

(3.) IN my opinion it was open to Mr. Garg to appear before the Collector and to satisfy him that he had no jurisdiction under Section 36 of the Indore Stamp Act which failed to do.