Sunkari Malakondaiah vs Sreekaram Malakondaiah

This revision is directed against the order passed by the District Munsif, Kanigiri in OS No.72 of 1996, wherein it is held that the letter dated 16-11-1990 is unstamped bond.

The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The petitioner-plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of money on the strength of a pronote dated 19-11-1987 and acknowledgment of liability dated 19-11-1990. During the examination-in-chief, the petitioner-plaintiff wanted to prove the letter of acknowledgment dated 19-11-1990. The respondent-defendant objected the proof of document dated 19-11-1990 on the ground that it is a bond and, therefore, it is inadmissible in evidence until it is duly impounded.

The document dated 19-11-1990 recites that the executant had borrowed a sum of Rs.23,500/- vide document dated 19-11-1987 and had repaid Rs.6,000/- in two instalments. The executant undertook to pay the balance amount after finalising the account before 31-3-1991.

The trial Court, taking the view that the letter dated 19-11-1990 not only acknowledges the liability and repayment of Rs.6,000/- in two instalments but also contains an undertaking to pay the balance amount of loan and, therefore, it is a bond. It further held that though the Court has no discretion to reject the orders of Revenue Divisional Officer when the document is sent for impounding, but because it contains an undertaking to pay the amount, the document requires to be impounded vide Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act.

Having heard the learned Counsel for both parties, I am of the view that the revi sion deserves to be allowed for the reasons stated in the following paragraphs.

It is not disputed before me that the receipt dated 16-11-1990 not only acknowledges the past transaction but also evidences repayment of Rs.6,000/- in two instalments against the loan and the undertaking to pay the balance after accounting before 31-3-1991. It is also not disputed before me that the plaintiff had submitted this document before the Revenue Divisional Officer for impounding it, but the Revenue Divisional Officer had reached the conclusion that stamp duty and penalty had already been realised by the plaintiff-petitioner on the document dated 19-11-1987 and, therefore, there is no need to impound again the letter dated 16-11-1990 as the amount covered in this document was already taken notice of in the original letter dated 19-11-1987. This order has been passed u/s 32 of the Indian Stamp Act and a certificate has been issued under this section. Section 35 provides that, no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purposes unless it is duly stamped. Clause (a) of the proviso provides that certain documents may be impounded on payment of requisite stamp duty and penalty while clause (e) of the proviso to Section 35 says that nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in any Court when such instrument has been executed by or on behalf of the Government or where it bears the certificate of the Collector as provided by Section 32 or any other provision of this Act.

Once the procedure is followed under Sections 31 and 32 of the Stamp Act and the Collector issues a certificate u/s 32 of the Act, that becomes conclusive and by virtue of clause (e) to proviso to Section 35, the admissibility of that document cannot be challenged except when a Collector impounds a promissory note because that is impermissible in law.

The lower Court has fallen in error because it has lost sight of the proviso (e) to Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act.

In the result, the revision petition is allowed at the admission stage and the impugned order passed by the lower Court is set aside. The petitioner-plaintiff can proceed with his evidence and prove the document dated 16-11-1990 without getting it impounded in view of the certificate of the Collector unless the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is revised by the competent authority. No costs.