DALPAT SINGH NARAYAN SINGH Vs. JIWANMAL JASRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is for revision of an order dated 5th February, 1959, passed by Shri Pearey Mohan, Civil Judge, Sojat, in civil ease No. 52 of 1957 pending before him. The said suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 on the basis of a promissory note dated 11th July, 1956. The plea taken by the defendant-petitioner was that the promissory note is inadmissible under Section 35 of the Stamp Act as not being duly stamped. The learned Civil Judge has overruled the plea, and hence the application to this Court on the ground that the Court below has acted illegally and with material irregularity in admitting the document in evidence.

(2.) It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that : (1) the promissory note was insufficiently stamped at the time of its execution inasmuch as there appear to have been only two one anna stamps affixed on the document at the time, the other two stamps having been subsequently affixed thereon; and (2) the stamps affixed on the document were not of appropriate description.

(3.) So far as the first point is concerned, the learned Judge on an examination of the document has clearly come to the conclusion that all the four stamps on the document were there at the time of its execution, and the suggestion that the stamps on the left side must have been affixed at a later stage was not well- founded. In the written statement no such definite plea was taken that two of the stamps on the document were subsequently affixed, and no evidence was led on the point by the defendant. An examination of the document shows that there are four revenue stamps of one anna each affixed on the document. The first part of the defendant's signature appears to be on the stamps on the right side, but the stamps on the left side have been cancelled by putting cross marks upon them. The manner in which the stamps were affixed clearly goes to show that they must have been affixed at the same time, and having examined the document myself, I have no reason to doubt the correctness of the finding of the learned Judge on the point. The finding is one of fact, which cannot be challenged in revision. The suggestion that the cancellation of the stamps on the left side by putting marks on the document in a different ink does not also appear to be correct, as held by the learned Judge: It is true that there is no signature on the stamps on the left side, and that merely cross marks have been put on those stamps; but in the eye of law even that would amount to cancellation of the stamps in question. Section 12 of the Stamp Act of course requires that whoever executes any instrument on any paper bearing an adhesive stamp shall, at the time of its execution, cancel the same so that it could not be used again. The omission to cancel any stamp may result In the document being taken to be unstamped to that extent; but the question whether or not a particular document has been effectively cancelled is a question purely of fact to be decided on an examination of the stamp in each particular case, and it has been he'd in several cases that the drawing of two lines crossing each other across the face of the stamp is an effectual cancellation. The learned Judge, therefore, rightly held that all the four stamps were affixed there at the time of the execution of the document, and that they had been duly cancelled. It cannot, therefore, be held that the document was unstamped on that account.