Short Note : 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff. The facts are that one Rambhajan was the owner of a house and land appurtenant to it in village Tundri, tahsil Balodabazar, district Raipur. This house is situated in Khsara No. 1802, total area of which is 0.06 acre. The house covers an area of 0.03 acre and the rest of the land is appurtenant to the house. By a registered sale deed executed on 27th March 1937, Rambhajan sold the house and the aforesaid land as well as some other lands in favour of the plaintiff Sukhadiya. The registered sale deed is Ex. P-3. The plaintiff's case is that she was dispossessed in July 1958 by the defendant Butwa. The suit for possession of the house and the appurtenant land was instituted on 10th August 1965. Butwa's case as alleged in the written statement was that on 12th February 1956 Rambhajan agreed to sell the house and the land in favour of the defendant for a sum of Rs. 1,450 and Rambhajan's son Mannolal executed a receipt in favour of the defendant on behalf of Rambhajan on the same date evidencing the agreement and put the defendant in possession. The defendant further pleaded that his possession was protected under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The receipt said to have been executed by Rambhajan's son Mannolal evidencing the agreement pleaded by the defendant is Ex. D-2. Both the Courts below accepted the plea under section 53-A raised by the defendant on the basis of Ex. D-2 and dismissed the suit. Held : In this appeal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant h~s contended before me that Ex. D-2 is a forged document which is borne out from the fact that it bears a Ten N aye Paise stamp on which Mannolal is alleged to have signed. It is pointed out that the Ten Naye Paise stamp for the first time appeared after 1st October 1958 and could not have been available on 12th February 1956 when Ex. D-2 is said to have been executed. In my opinion, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant must be accepted. The system of decimal coinage was brought into effect by the Indian Coinage (amendment) Act, 1955 which inserted section 14 in the Indian Coinage Act 1906. This amendment Act came into force on 1st April 1957. D-2 is said to have been executed. In my opinion, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant must be accepted. The system of decimal coinage was brought into effect by the Indian Coinage (amendment) Act, 1955 which inserted section 14 in the Indian Coinage Act 1906. This amendment Act came into force on 1st April 1957. The decimal coin was designated as 'Naya Paisa' by S. R. O. No 1120 published in the Government Gazette of 14th May 1956. Section 11 of the Stamp Act providing for adhesive stamps was consequently amended by the Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1958. This amendment Act came into force on 1st October 1958. The statutory provision of Ten Naye Paise stamp was thus for the first time made on 1st October 1958. The Ten Naye Paise stamp must have, therefore, come in the market sometime after 1st October 1958 and it could not have been available on 12th February 1956 when Ex. D-2 is said to have been executed. Ex. D-2 is, therefore, clearly false document which must have been prepared by the defendant to bolster up a false defence. The evidence of the defendant is also clearly false. 2. The Courts below fell into an error in upholding the defence under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act because their attention was not drawn to the adhesive stamp of Ten Naye Paise affixed on Ex. D-2. The learned counsel for the appellant must be congratulated for discovering this fraud at the stage of second appeal. Appeal allowed.