BALWINDER SINGH Vs. BHAJAN KAUR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. No.926-C of 2013

(2.) I am afraid I cannot accept this contention, for, Section 35 of the Stamp Act casts an exception to promissory note for being validated by collection of the stamp duty or the penalty subsequently, if it was not already stamped. The proviso (a) to Section 35 states that "any such instrument not being an instrument chargeable with a duty not exceeding ten paise only or a bill of exchange or promissory note, or acknowledgment or delivery order, shall, subject to all just exceptions, be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable"....... The payment of duty for which it is chargeable will revalidate instruments other than a bill of exchange or promissory note or acknowledgment or delivery order. The payment of duty subsequently or that there is a stamp which is affixed would also be valid is against the provisions of law. The effect of not crossing a stamp is also considered by this Court in Naranjan Singh Vs. Gurdev Singh, 1996 114 PunLR 54 . If the plaintiff had not been able to enforce a promissory note, it would have been still possible to sue on the original cause of action namely the debt as held by the various High Courts in the following decisions namely Ram Nath Vs. Bhagwati Prasad and another, 1946 AIR(All) 150 ; Kallappa Pundalik Reddi Vs. Laxmibai Dattoba Velloram and others, 1995 AIR(Bom) 160 ; Shrishailappa Vs. C.P. Malashetti and others, 1997 2 KarLJ 302 ; M Narasimhulu Vs. M. Laxmamma and others, 1997 2 ICC 165 and Natesan Vs. Siri Bala Murugan Finance, 2006 41 AllIndCas 409 . It would, therefore, require to be proved that there was a debt which was contracted and money had been paid. In such an event the normal presumption of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act will become unavailable and the debt has to be proved independently. The defendant had denied that he had ever borrowed any amount and therefore, presumption also does not avail to the plaintiff. The enforcement of the instrument as a promissory note or recovery of amount on the original cause of action is, therefore, not available. The dismissal of the suit by the Court below was justified although on different grounds which I have set forth in the present appeal. The question of law involved in the appeal could only be seen to arise against the plaintiff-appellant and hence, the second appeal is dismissed.