Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose out of two mudatti hundis drawn by the respondent in favour of the appellants in connection with business transactions as commission agents. The appellants sought to recover Rs.39,615 principal with interest after the hundis were dishonoured upon maturity. The suit was instituted in the Court of the District Judge, Jodhpur on January 4, 1949. The respondent admitted execution but denied consideration and challenged the admissibility of the hundis on the ground of insufficient stamping. The hundis were executed in December 1946 when the Marwar Stamp Act, 1914 was in force; Sections 9 and 11 allowed unstamped instruments to be admitted upon payment of duty and penalty. A new Marwar Stamp Act, 1947 came into force before the suit was filed, similar to the Indian Stamp Act. When the suit was filed, duty and penalty were paid under the old 1914 Act. The trial court admitted the hundis as Exhibits P.1 and P.2 with endorsement 'Admitted in evidence' signed by the judge and proceeded to try the suit. By judgment dated September 26, 1952, the trial court decreed the suit. On appeal, the Rajasthan High Court reversed, holding that under Section 35 proviso (a) of the 1947 Act the hundis could not be admitted even after payment of duty and penalty. The High Court further held that Section 36 of the 1947 Act did not apply because the admission was a 'pure mistake' by the trial court which had overlooked the new Act. Relying on Ratan Lal v. Dan Das, the High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. The central question was whether the two hundis were admissible in evidence, and whether Section 36 of the Marwar Stamp Act, 1947 barred the High Court from questioning the trial court's admission of the documents on the ground of insufficient stamping. The appellants contended that once the documents had been marked as exhibits and relied upon by both parties, Section 36 made the admission final and not open to challenge at any later stage. The respondent argued that the admission was erroneous because the trial court proceeded under the repealed 1914 Act, and that the appellate court could correct the mistake. The Supreme Court held that the High Court misdirected itself. Section 36 of the 1947 Act was categorical: once an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such admission shall not be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that it was not duly stamped. The court reasoned that the trial court had to determine the question judicially when the document was tendered, and after marking it as an exhibit and proceeding with the trial, the matter was closed between the parties. The order admitting the document, whether right or wrong, was not one of those judicial orders liable to be revised or reviewed by the same court or a superior court. Consequently, the High Court's reliance on Ratan Lal v. Dan Das was disapproved. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court, and restored the trial court's decree in favour of the appellants.
Headnote
A) Evidence - Admissibility of Unstamped Instruments - Admissibility Final After Admission - Marwar Stamp Act, 1947, Section 36 - Once an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such admission cannot be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument was not duly stamped. The High Court erred in treating the trial court's admission of two hundis as a pure mistake and in setting aside the decree on that basis. Held that Section 36 finalizes the matter as between the parties and bars any later challenge to admissibility. B) Evidence - Stamp Duty - Changed Stamp Law and Admissibility - Marwar Stamp Act, 1914, Sections 9, 11; Marwar Stamp Act, 1947, Section 35 proviso (a) - At the time the hundis were executed in December 1946, the 1914 Act permitted unstamped instruments to be admitted upon payment of duty and penalty, while the 1947 Act prohibited such admission even with payment under Section 35 proviso (a). The Court did not reopen the correctness of the initial admission under the old law but held that once admitted, Section 36 of the 1947 Act precluded any subsequent challenge. Held that the admissibility question is closed after admission and reliance by the parties. C) Civil Procedure - Appellate Review of Admission Orders - Finality of Admission Orders - Marwar Stamp Act, 1947, Section 36 - An order admitting a document in evidence, whether right or wrong, is not one of those judicial orders liable to be revised or reviewed by the same court or a court of superior jurisdiction. The High Court's reliance on Ratan Lal v. Dan Das was disapproved. Held that appellate court cannot go behind the trial court's order admitting evidence once trial proceeded on that footing.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the two unstamped hundis were admissible in evidence and whether Section 36 of the Marwar Stamp Act, 1947 precluded the appellate court from questioning the trial court's admission of the documents on the ground of insufficient stamping.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court, and restored the trial court's decree in favor of the appellants.
Law Points
- Section 36 of Marwar Stamp Act
- 1947 barred any challenge to admission of document on ground of insufficient stamping once admitted
- trial court's admission was final and not subject to appellate review
- High Court erred in going behind admission
- Ratan Lal v. Dan Das disapproved
- unstamped hundis admitted under old Act but subject to Section 36 of new Act
