PUKHRAJ SURANA Vs. JAWERCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by Pukhraj Surana defendant against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Jodhpur, decreeing the suit brought by the plaintiffs respondents against the defendant appellant.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs was that they were carrying on business under the name and style of Chandulal Kushalchand at Bombay. THE plaintiffs used to work as commission agent for the defendant who was the manager of his joint family, and was carrying on the business of the joint family. As a result of these dealings between the plaintiffs and the defendant, a certain sum of money was due to the plaintiffs. THE defendant, in order to pay off in part the amount due from him to the plaintiffs, executed two Muddati Hundis on Mangsar Sudi 8th St. 2 03 for a total sum of Rs. 35,000/ -. One of these Hundis was for Rs. 20,000/- payable 61 days after date, while the other was for Rs. 15,000/- payable 121 days after date. THE plaintiffs endorsed the Hundis in favour of Raghunathmal Bank and asked the Bank to credit the money to their account as and when the Hundis were honoured. THE Bank presented the Hundis on the respective dates of their maturity to the defendant, but they were dishonoured. Consequently, the Bank returned the Hundis to the plaintiffs who asked the defendant to pay the amount of the Hundis. THE defendant, however, refused to do so, and consequently the plaintiffs filed the suit for Rs. 39,615/-including principal and interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

(3.) THEN we come to the second question, namely whether the so called admission of these two documents on the 3rd of January, 1950, bars the decision of issue No. (2) relating to their admissibility in view of sec. 36 of the Stamp Act. A similar matter came up for consideration in Ratanlal's case (l ). We then reviewed a large number of authorities, and came to the conclusion that once an instrument has been admitted in evidence either after judicial determination of the issue relating thereto where such issue has been raised, or because no objection was taken to its admissibility, but not by pure mistake, such admission cannot be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground of insufficient of stamp. A number of authorities have been cited before us at the bar, but we do not think it necessary to review them once again after our decision in Ratanlal's case (l) to which we adhere. What falls for consideration in this case is whether the so called admission on the 3rd of January, 1950, bars the calling in question of the admission of these Hundis when the case came to be argued before the court later.