Madras High Court
P. Moorthy vs A.R. Kothandaraman on 14 March, 1978
Equivalent citations: AIR1978MAD412, AIR 1978 MADRAS 412, 1991 MADLW 450 (1978) 2 MADLJ294, (1978) 2 MADLJ294
ORDER Nainar Sundaram, J.
1. The defendant in suit No. 401 of 1974 on the file of the III Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras is the petitioner in this revision. The respondent is the plaintiff in that suit. The plaintiff laid the suit for recovery of the amounts due under a promissory note dated 11-1-1971. Several contentions were raised by the defendant and the main among them centered around the question as to whether the document upon which the plaintiff laid the suit is properly stamped within the meaning of the provisions of the Stamp Act and the rules framed thereunder so that it can be counted and acted upon as a promissory note. The document is written up on a stamp paper of the value of Rs. 150. The III Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras considered the questions raised in the case and found that the writing up of the promissory note in a stamp paper of the value of Rs. 1.50 would not demolish the character of the document being a promissory note and would not make it a document not duly stamped within the meaning of the provisions of the Stamp Act and the rules framed thereunder. He found the other points also against the defendant and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed as prayed for. The defendant preferred a new trial application No. 194 of 1974 and the new trial bench of the Court of Small Causes considered the case of the defendant and the Judges of the new trial bench did not agree with the finding of the first court that the document in question is a promissory note obviously on the reasoning that the document is not duly stamped. However they treated the document as a voucher executed by the defendant in respect of the borrowing concerned. The Judges of the new trial Bench also declined to accept the other contentions of the defendant and the new trial application was dismissed. The present revision is directed against the judgment and decree of the new trial Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Madras.
2. Thiru Vittal V. Souli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that under the provisions of the Stamp Act and the rules framed thereunder, the promissory note must be stamped by the use of adhesive stamps and the engrossment of the document on stamp papers of the value of Rs. 1.50 is irregular and will not make the document a duly stamped one so as to be acted upon in evidence in the courts.
3. Thiru R. N. Kothandaraman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff, in the suit, submits that it would suffice the provisions of the Stamp Act and the rules framed thereunder if the proper stamp duty is paid and the mode adopted in the present case, viz, writing up the documents on a stamp paper of the value of Rs. 1.50 will not make the document an improperly stamped or a * not duly stamped one, so as to make it inadmissible for consideration in courts.
4. I find there is force in the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the res' pendent. Section 10 of the Indian Stamp Act lays down that-
"Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, all duties with which any instruments are chargeable shall be paid, and such payment shall be indicated on such instruments, by means of stamps-
(a) according to the provisions herein contained; or
(b) when no such provision is applicable thereto, as the State Government may by rule direct."
Section 11 of the Indian Stamp Act lays down that the instruments set out under clauses (a) to (e) thereunder may be stamped with adhesive stamps. Clause (b) of Section 11 refers to 'bills of exchange, and promissory notes, drawn or made out of India'. Obviously, this clause would not apply to the case in question. Coming to the rules framed under the Act by the State of Tamil Nadu, Rule 5 reads as follows :--
"Promissory notes and bill of exchange --A promissory note or bill of exchange shall except as provided by Section 11 or by Rule 13, be written 011 paper on which a stamp of the proper value, with or without the word 'hundi', has been engraved or embossed."
It will be relevant to refer to Rule 13 also be" cause Rule 5 referred to above, states that a promissory note or bill of exchange shall except as provided ...... or by Rule 13 be written on paper on which a stamp of the proper value has been engraved or embossed. Rule 13 reads as follows-
13. Use of adhesive stamps on certain in struments. -- The following instruments may be stamped with adhesive stamps namely-
(a) transfers of debentures of public companies and associations,
(b) copies of maps or plans, printed copies and copies of or extracts from registers given on printed forms when chargeable with duty under Article 24 of schedule I,
(c) instruments chargeable "with duty under Article 5 (a) and (b) of schedule I,
(d) instruments chargeable with stamp duty under Art; 47 of schedule 1,
(e) instruments chargeable with stamp duty under Arts. 19, 36, 37, 49 (a) (ii) and (iii) and 52 of schedule 1,
(f) instruments of transfer of shares of public companies or associations,
(g) bonds executed under any law relating to a central duty of excise or any rule made thereunder.
(h) deleted........
(i) security bonds to be furnished by an appellant or an applicant in revision under the provisions of Sections 31(5) 33 (4), 35 (4). 86 (5), 37 (6) or 38 (6) and 'authorisation to be furnished under Section 52 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act 1959 (Madras Act I of 1959). Article 49 (a) (ii) of schedule I relates to promissory notes where the amount or value exceeds Rs. 250 but does not exceed Es. 1000 and Art 49 (a) (iii) of schedule I relates to promissory note of any other case.
The expression used in Rule 13 of the Rules is 'may'. Interpreting similar rules framed by State of Rajasthan Jagat Narayan J. in Kalwan Singh v. Bhanwarlal ILR (1965) 15 Raj 231 held that-
"The rule is merely a permissive one, permitting the use of an adhesive stamp on promissory notes payable on demand when the amount or value exceeds Rs. 250. The rule does not lay down that such promissory note shall be stamped with adhesive stamp of the requisite value. The result is that a promissory note exceeding Hs. 250 in value can be written On a paper having an impressed stamp or it can be stamped with adhesive stamps of the requisite value".
5. The same learned Judge pronounced the same view in Somdatta v. Abul Rashid and the learned Judge observes that in view of the word 'may' used in the provisions the promissory notes of any value can also be written on impressed stamps.
6. I am inclined to follow the ratio of the learned Judge of the Rajasthan. High Court because I find the expression used in the provision is 'may'. In my view, a promissory note can be stamped either with adhesive stamps or engrossed on a stamp paper of proper value. In this view. I find that the trial court is correct in holding the document as a properly stamped promissory note and giving reliefs to the plaintiff. Hence while setting aside the finding of the new trial Bench of the Court of Small Causes with reference to the character of the document in question. I confirm the findings of the fact arrived at both by the first court as well as the new trial Bench of Court of Small Causes and I do not find any warrant to interfere in revision. Hence this revision is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.