CHANDER BHAN Vs. MAHA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for revision is directed against the decision of Shri O. P. Saini, Additional Judge Small Cause Court, Delhi.

(2.) A suit for recovery of Rs. 961/- on account of principal and interest was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants mahan Singh and Deep Chand sons of Kirpa Ram on the basis of the balance struck by them his bahi on 20-12-1963. The defendants contested the suit. It was pleaded that the bahi was not admissible in evidence because the acknowledgment was not property stamped. It was also pleased that the plaintiff was money-lender and that he could not bring the suit without getting the Money-lenders' Licence. The liability to pay the amount in question was also denied. It is common ground that if the acknowledgment is not admissible in evidence the plaintiff's suit must fall.

(3.) The trial Court held that the plaintiff was a money-lender and that he had a Money-lender's Licence. The defendant admitted the execution of the balance amounted to an acknowledgment and not an agreement and therefore, it being not properly stamped was not admissible in evidence. The trial Court also held that the entry is dispute amounted to an acknowledgment and was therefore not admissible in evidence, and that the amounting question has not been paid by the defendants. The suit was accordingly dismissed. Against, the decision the present petition for revision was preferred to this Court, which came up for hearing before Capoor J. on the 28th February, 1961, who passed the following order:-" One of the points raised in this case by Mr. D. K. Kapoor on behalf of the petitioner is that the extension of the Indian Stamp (East Punjab Amendment) Act, 1949 (East Punjab Act No. XXVII of 1949) to Delhi State by a notification in the official Gazette No. SRO-422 dated the 21st March, 1951, Legislature of the Delhi State by section 2 of the Part C States (Laws)Act, 1950 (Act No. XXX of 1950) inasmuch as by that extension it was a Central Act that is the Indian Stamp Act, which was supported to be amended, Prima Facie, there is some force in the contention and I would therefore, direct the notice be issued to the Advocate-General, who may make any submission he desires on this point.' The matter was then placed before me on the 3rd December, 1962, and in view of the constitution question involved in the case I directed that the matter be decided by a Division Bench. That is in the matter has been placed before us.