BANKE BIHARI LAL Vs. RAM UCHIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision is directed against an order of the District Judge of Monghyr, dismissing under Order 41, Rule 11, Civil P.C., the petitioner's appeal to him against the dismissal of his suit based on a hand-note by the Munsif of Begusarai. The suit was for the principal sum of Rs. 332 with interest and was valued at Rs. 475. The defendants appeared and admitted the debt but asked the Court for consideration in respect of interest and prayed for an instalment decree. The learned Munsif, however, discovered that the stamp on the hand-note, which was dated 28 March 1934, was not available till 1 April 1934, that is three days after the date mentioned in the hand-note and on this ground alone he dismissed the suit. The plaintiff's appeal to the District Judge was, as I have said, summarily dismissed. The plaintiff has come up to this Court in revision.

(2.) In my opinion the dismissal of the suit was without jurisdiction, after the defendants had admitted the liability. Assuming for the sake of argument that the stamp which was affixed on the hand-note was not available till the 1 April, there may be a number of explanations for it though the explanation given by the learned Advocate for the plaintiff before the learned Munsif was not satisfactory. The date of the hand-note is mentioned at the end of it by the scribe. It is quite possible that though the hand-note was written on 28 March 1934, it was not actually executed and signed till the 1 April or a day or two later. An interval of three or four days between the writing of a document and its execution is not an unknown thing and it usually happens. In my opinion, however, the learned Munsif had no foundation for holding that the two stamps on the hand-note were not available till 1 April 1934, and he has misunderstood the Board's Circular No. 26- 51-27, dated 17 October 1935, addressed to all the Divisional Commissioners. I have consulted that Circular and also the Government Communique, dated 30th November 1933. The position is this. For a long time unified stamps of certain denominations were used both for postage and revenue purposes. In the end of 1932 the Government of India decided to issue separate stamps for postage and revenue and they ordered that the use of the separate revenue stamps would be obligatory from 1 April 1934. This order was communicated to the Commissioners of the various Divisions of the Board of Revenue in the circular referred to by the learned Munsif. It shows that the Government of India had decided to abolish the unified stamps then in use and to introduce separate revenue stamps of the denominations of half an anna, one anna, two annas and four annas, and from 1 April 1934 the use of new revenue stamps would be obligatory. The Government of this province realized that for a long time the public were in the habit of using unified stamps both for postage and revenue purposes and they thought that the compulsory use of the newly introduced stamps would cause some hardship and the public might use unified stamps and thus make the documents ineffective. Therefore, they for the intermediate period introduced the ordinary postage stamp over-printed with the words Revenue B & O , so that in a few months time the public might; become accustomed to the use of different sets of stamps for different purposes. Both the circular and the Government Communique mention that the use of the newly introduced stamps would be obligatory from 1 April 1934. The Board's Circular is based upon the letter of the Government of India, dated 30 June 1932, showing that about 21 months notice was given before the use of new stamp on a compulsory basis. The stamp must have been in use for some time on an optional basis. It is nowhere mentioned that these stamps could not be used, if available, before 1 April 1934. The date 1st April 1934 is the date when the use of separate revenue stamps would be, as I have said, obligatory. The stamps must have been available several days before 1 April 1934, in post offices which are agencies for the sale of revenue stamps and there is nothing extraordinary in the post offices issuing these revenue stamps before 1 April 1934. Unless the newly introduced revenue stamps were available a few days before 1 April 1934, the public would have been put to a good deal of inconvenience. Those who have to use a large number of revenue stamps for purposes of granting receipts must obtain them before that date. I am absolutely certain that these new revenue stamps must have been available some time before the 1 April and were being used though on an optional basis.

(3.) This seems to me to be the real explanation of the revenue stamps being on the hand-note. It is impossible to conceive, if the hand-note were a forged one, that the defendant would have admitted the claim throughout. The common feature of such cases is that the defendants deny even the genuine hand-notes. The defendant of this suit would not have accepted the liability under the hand- note which he never executed. The defendants have appeared before this Court. Mr. S.N. Rai, who appears for the major defendants, has admitted the genuineness of the hand-note. The principal defendant was present in Court and was himself instructing the learned advocate. From the attitude of the parties I am satisfied that there was no collusion between the plaintiff and the defendant and I appreciate the honesty of the defendant who was willing to suffer a decree if it was passed in such a way as to enable him to pay up, in spite of the fact that the suit was dismissed by the lower Court.