MANGALA LAKSHMAPPA Vs. PATHALA MUSUD SAHIB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit was filed upon an insufficiently stamped promissory note. The question that was chiefly debated in the lower Courts was, whether or not the plaintiff could fall back upon the original cause of action; but on account of the turn the case has taken, that question becomes immaterial. The learned District Munsif, being of the opinion that in any event the promissory note could be relied on as containing an acknowledgment of liability, allowed the note to be filed in evidence and on the strength of it, passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff. That decree of the District Munsif has been set aside by the lower Appellate Court.

(2.) Mr. Mtarama Rao, for the plaintiff (appellant) contends that the document having been once admitted in evidence, the original defect no longer operates as a hindrance. Section 36 of the Indian Scamp Act provides: Where an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such iustrument shall not, except as provided in Section 61, be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped

(3.) There is no force in the respondent's contention that Section 36 does not apply to promissory notes or bills of exchange referred to in proviso (a) to Section 35. The words of Section 36, are perfectly general and are not restricted in their application to such documents only as can be received in evidence on payment of the stamp duty and penalty.