KAMLA DEVI Vs. SIANPO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE specific question which falls for determination in this petition is whether a promissory note which bears a stamp of sufficient amount but of improper description can be certified to be duly stamped under Section 37 of the Stamp Act (hereinafter the Act) read with Rule 11 of the Rules made under the Act ?

(2.) THE respondent brought a suit against, the petitioners on the foot, of a promissory note bearing adhesive stamp - of forty paise. An objection was taken by the petitioners that the promissory note was inadmissible in evidence and could not be acted upon as it was not written on a paper with the requisite stamp impressed on it as required under Rule 4. The respondent, thereafter, made an application that, the promissory note may be returned to her, so that it could be presented to the Collector for obtaining his certificate on it in terms of Sec. 37 read with Rule 11 that it was duly stamped, as the pronote bore stamp of sufficient, amount though of improper description. This application was allowed by the trial court and the promissory note was returned to the respondent as a consequence of which, he also obtained the Collectors certificate on it that it was duly stamped. It is this order which has been challenged by the defendant -petitioners in this revision petition. The petition was initially heard by Chief Justice Ali as his Lordship then was, who being of the opinion, that it involved a substantial question of law as to whether a promissory note, a bill of exchange, an acknowledgement or an instrument chargeable with a duty of ten paise which was written on sufficient stamp but of improper description could be validated u/s 37, directed the petition to be placed before a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement. This is how this petition has come up before this Bench.

(3.) APPEARING for the petitioners, Mr. Bhardwaj has argued that proviso to Sec. 35 create a bar against admitting any of the aforesaid documents in evidence, even on payment of penalty and duty, with which the same is chargeable, in case it is not duly stamped. Section 37, argued the learned counsel, has to be read subject to the said proviso and if a promissory note cannot be admitted in evidence u/s 35, muchless can it be validated by the Collector u/s 37 read with Rule 11. To support his contention, he has placed reliance upon Nagala Dinne Erranna. Vs. Angadi Modappa and another, AIR 1963 Andhra Pradesh 457 and Annop Chand Vs. Nathmal, AIR 1965 Raj. 114. Mr. Guptaâ„¢s contention on the other hand is that proviso to Section 35 cannot be read as a proviso to Sec. 37, which otherwise is wide enough in terms to apply to promissory notes as well. He too has relied upon a decision of Madhya Bhart High Court in (Thakur) Ranjit Singh Vs. Behramji AIR Madhya Bharat 181.