BALU RAM Vs. DHANGAL RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision by the defendant is directed against an appellate judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Mandi and Chamba districts, affirming a decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge Karsog for recovery of Rs. 735/- on foot of a promissory note dated 1-1-1959 executed by the petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 684/-. A receipt Ex. P. B was also executed by the petitioner contemporaneously with the execution of the pronote.

(2.) The petitioner admitted the execution of the pronote but denied having received the sum of Rs. 684/- in cash. His case was that the pronote. was executed in lieu of past transactions.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge decreed the suit. An appeal was filed by the petitioner in the Court of the District Judge and in support of it an argument was advanced that the pronote in suit was insufficiently stamped and as such was inadmissible in evidence and no decree could have been passed on its basis. While the learned District Judge held that the pronote was insufficiently stamped, he repelled the aforesaid contention relying upon the provisions of Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act and on a ruling of the Allahabad High Court reported in AIR 1935 All 410, Lakhmi Das v. Lakho Ram.