Law: Stamp Act (II of 1899)

Section: S. 36

Stamp Act (II of 1899), S. 36-Expression "admitted in evi dence"-Meaning-Document once admitted-Cannot be challenged afterwards at any stage on ground that it has not been properly stamped.   The expression "admitted in evidence" in section 36 of the Stamp Act, 1899 does not mean admitted in evidence as a result of judicial determination of the question whether the document could be admitted in evidence or not for want of stamp. There is no warrant for introducing this limitation qualifying the plain language of the section which makes it reasonably clear that the instrument having once been admitted in any proceeding, whether wrongly or rightly, without objection or after hearing objection, it is available in that proceeding, for all purposes as if it had been properly stamped from the outset. The proceeding will go through a valid termination and cannot afterwards be challenged for want of jurisdiction merely by reason of non compliance with the provisions of the Stamp Act, 1899. The ques tion in such cases is whether the document has been admitted and not whether it was admitted after a special objection relating to the sufficiency of stamp was taken and determined.   Stamp Act (II of 1899), S. 36 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XIII, r. 3-Provisions of O. XIII, r. 3, C. P. C. Must yield to S. 36, Stamp Act (II of 1899).   The provisions of rule 3, Order XIII of the Civil Procedure Code, 190N must yield to section 36 of the Stamp Act, 1899 and once a document is admitted in evidence no objection as regards insufficiency of stamp can be taken at any stage of the proceeding.   JUDGMENT   AKBAR, J.-This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment and decree of our learned brother Hasan, J., in Second Appeal No. 676 of 1957 arises out of suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,100 alleged to be due on a handnote dated the 23rd June 1954. The defendant filed written statement denying the execution of the said handnote.   His defence was that he had signed a blank-sheet of paper as a security for paymentof Rs. 1,100 due to one Meghu Miah from his son Mawla…