RATANLAL Vs. DAUDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 18 (2) of the Rajas-than High Court Ordinance (No. 15) of 1949 from the judgment of a Single Judge of this Court.

(2.) THE appellant was defendant in the suit. THE plaintiffs Daudas and Mohanlal sued for recovery of Rs. 411/- consisting of Rs. 300/- as principal and the rest as interest. THE suit was based on document Ex. P-l, dated Baisakh. Sudi 11 Section 1997. THE defendant contended that the document in question was inadmissible in evidence under Article 1, Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act, and under the Marwar Stamp Act of 1914 in force on the date of the execution of the document, as it required a stamp of one anna, and as it did not bear the stamp, it could not be admitted under the law in force at the time when it was put in force in Court. This contention was accepted by the trial Court, and the suit was dismissed. THEre was an appeal to the District Judge, which was also dismissed. THEn there was a second appeal to this Court, which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge. He has held that Article 1, Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act does not apply, and the document did not require any stamp at all. He admitted the document, and sent the suit back for retrial on the merits. He, however, granted permission to the defendant to appeal under Section 18 (2) of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, and hence this appeal before us.

(3.) THE appellant also relied on certain cases dealing with Section 35. It is in our opinion unnecessary to refer to those cases because the considerations there are different. THE only case where both Sections 35 and 36 are dealt with is -- 'rup Chand v. Beli Ram', AIR 1933 Lah 240 (1) (H ). In that case it was remarked that even though an instrument not duly stamped cannot be admitted in evidence for any purpose whatsoever under Section 35 when once it is admitted by a Court, though wrongly, the appellate Court is debarred, under Section 36 of the Act, from interfering in the matter.