Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 695 (AP)

Mohd. Jani Miya v. Koriginja (Varala) Ramesh

2008-08-28

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2008
Judgment : The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.59 of 2006 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Jangaon, against the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, for recovery of certain amount. The trial of the suit commenced. The 1st respondent sought to rely upon a promissory note. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent raised objection as to the admissibility of the document, on the ground that it was not properly stamped. They pleaded that the 1st respondent had lifted a cancelled stamp from another document and pasted it on the suit promissory note. The second plea was that the signature on the stamp did not spread over to the document and in that view of the matter, there was no valid cancellation, as provided for under Section 12 of the Indian Stamp Act (for short 'the Act'). Through its order, dated 31.03.2008, the trial Court overruled the objections, mainly relying upon the Judgment of this Court in Valluru China Lakshmi vs. Majji Dharma Rao 2007(6) ALT 69 . Hence, this Civil Revision Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court recorded a clear finding to the effect that the signature on the stamp did not extend to any portion of the paper and thereby, there was no valid cancellation of the stamp. He contends that the presumption provided for under sub-Section (2) of Section 12 of the Act gets attracted and the document becomes inadmissible in law. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that it is not necessary that the signature on a stamp must extend to any portion of the paper and any indication to the effect that the stamp was duly cancelled would be sufficient. He further submits that sub-Section (3) of Section 12 of the Act does not prescribe any procedure in this regard. The objection raised by the petitioner, to the admissibility of the suit promissory note, was as regards the non-cancellation of the stamp. Section 12 of the Act mandates that whenever any adhesive stamp is affixed on the document, it must be cancelled, to ensure that it is not used for any other purpose. Sub-section (2) thereof directs that if the stamp is not properly cancelled, the document has to be treated as the one, which is not stamped at all. As a result, the document becomes inadmissible under Section 35 of the Act. Sub-section (2) thereof directs that if the stamp is not properly cancelled, the document has to be treated as the one, which is not stamped at all. As a result, the document becomes inadmissible under Section 35 of the Act. In the instant case, the plea of the petitioner that the signature on the adhesive stamp affixed on the document did not commence with or extend to the actual promissory note, across the adhesive stamp, was fond to be correct. The trial Court in paragraph No.5 of its order, categorically observed that the signature on the stamp did not commence from or extend to the paper. In R.B. Suraj Bhan vs. Dewan Singh 1974 RLR 138 , the Delhi High Court took the view that putting of a signature exclusively on the stamp does not constitute proper cancellation. The trial Court understood that the judgment of this Court in Valluru China Lakshmi's case (1 supra) is an authority for the proposition that the cancellation of the stamp does not necessitate a portion of the signature, to extend to the paper of the document. That however is not the purport of the said judgment. In Valluru China Lakshmi's case (1 supra), two questions arose for consideration before this Court. The first is as to the competence of a Court to reject a document, once it was admitted in evidence. The second is about the method of cancellation of a stamp. The first question does not arise for consideration in this case. So far as the second question is concerned, this Court observed that even where two parallel lines are drawn across the stamp affixed on a document, it would amount to cancellation under Section 12 of the Act. In the instant case, neither such lines are drawn nor any signature was put across the stamp extending to the paper. Therefore, non-compliance with Section 12 of the Act comes to be established. In that view of the matter, the order under revision cannot be sustained in law. The Revision Petition is accordingly allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, the document is held not admissible in evidence. There shall be no order as to costs.