Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.40 seconds)Section 61 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
The Indian Stamp Act, 1899
Section 91 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 35 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
Javer Chand And Others vs Pukhraj Surana on 25 April, 1961
In Javer Chand and Ors. vs. Pukhraj Surana reported in
1961 SC 1655 this section has been interpreted thus:-
Nazir Khan And Anr. vs Ram Mohan Lal And Anr. on 3 July, 1930
Mr. Ghosh submits that in the instant case money was lent on terms
contained in a promissory note given at the time of loan, both the
promissory notes and the loan per se being part and parcel of the same
transaction. In such a situation the plaintiff as lender swing to recover
money allege to have been lent must prove those terms of the promissory
note. If for any reason as such the absence of the proper stamp, the
promissory note is not admissible in evidence. The plaintiff would not be
entitled to set up a case independent of the note in view of the provision of
Section 91 of the Evidence Act. He cannot recover the money by proving
orally the terms of the contract. Reliance has been placed by Mr. Ghosh in
Nazir Khan And Anr. vs Ram Mohan Lal And Anr. reported at AIR 1931
All 183.