PRITAM SINGH Vs. LAL SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A licence for a petrol pump is held by Pritam Singh defendant at Patiala. He is in actual use and occupation of the petrol pump. He took with himself one Manohar Singh as a partner. Subsequently there were differences between them followed by a suit Manohar Singh for dissolution of the partnership with regard to the petrol pump. While that suit was pending, on February 3, 1965, the parties, appeared in court. There also appeared in court Lai Singh Babu Ram, plaintiffs. Five cheques, dated November 28, 1964, for a total amount of Rs. 20,000, drawn by the plaintiffs in the name of the defendant were produced in the court and actually handed over by them to him in court. The defendant endorsed those cheques in favour of Manohar Singh. On that settlement was reached between him and Manohar Singh that all liability of the defendant to Manohar Singh was discharged, with the result that the suit of Manohar Singh was dismissed. A document was executed between the defendant, on the one side, and the plaintiffs, on the other, simultaneously. It is the nature and character of that document that is in question.

(2.) A suit has been brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant to recover an amount of Rs. 17,800/ -, out of the amount of Rs. 20,000/ - of the cheques, it being their allegation that the balance has been paid by the defendant to them in cash, and it is in that suit that the plaintiffs rely on the document referred to above to support their claim against the defendant. In the trial court the defendant claimed that the document was an acknowledgment of a debt within the scope of Art. 1 in Schedule I to the Stamp Act and as it is not properly stamped, hence It is inadmissible in evidence. The trial court has by its order of December 20 1965, found the document not to be an acknowledgment under Art. 1, Schedule I of the Stamp Act and has obviously disallowed this objection of the defendant. It is that order which is sought to be revised in this revision application by the defendant.