Skip to content


Thakari Mallah Vs. Ram Tahal Tewari - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1931All57
AppellantThakari Mallah
RespondentRam Tahal Tewari
Excerpt:
- - such signature will be quite as good as his own signature for the purpose of cancellation......he decreed the suit.2. the present revision has been filed mainly on the ground that the adhesive stamp on the pro-note in suit was not concelled in the manner required by section 12, stamp act, and for that reason the pro-note could not be enforced being inadmissible in evidence. this objection was not taken before the trial court. on the merits i do not think it has any substance. the adhesive stamp on the pro-note in question bears the signature of the executant in the handwriting of the scribe of the pro-note. the executant is illiterate. section 12, stamp act, provides that: 'whoever executes any instrument on any paper bearing an adhesive stamp shall at the time of the execution, unless such stamp has already been cancelled in the manner aforesaid, cancel the same so that.....
Judgment:

Niamatullah, J.

1. This is a revision arising out of a Small Cause Court suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent on foot of a pro-note. In defence the execution of the pro-note and receipt of consideration were denied. Circumstances under which the defendant signed a blank paper were alleged. The learned Judge of the Court below overruled the defence and held the execution of the pro-note and the passing of consideration duly proved. Accordingly he decreed the suit.

2. The present revision has been filed mainly on the ground that the adhesive stamp on the pro-note in suit was not concelled in the manner required by Section 12, Stamp Act, and for that reason the pro-note could not be enforced being inadmissible in evidence. This objection was not taken before the trial Court. On the merits I do not think it has any substance. The adhesive stamp on the pro-note in question bears the signature of the executant in the handwriting of the scribe of the pro-note. The executant is illiterate. Section 12, Stamp Act, provides that: 'whoever executes any instrument on any paper bearing an adhesive stamp shall at the time of the execution, unless such stamp has already been cancelled in the manner aforesaid, cancel the same so that it cannot be used again'.

3. Sub-section 3 of the same section refers to one of the modes of cancelling an adhesive stamp, i. e,. by signing across the stamp. The learned advocate for the applicant contends that if an executant is illiterate and cannot therefore sign across the stamp he must put his thumbmark thereon, and in the absence of a thumb-mark or anything done by himself the stamp cannot be deemed to have been duly cancelled. I am unable to accept this contention. An illiterate person can direct the scribe of the pro-note or anyone else to sign across the adhesive stamp on his own behalf. Such signature will be quite as good as his own signature for the purpose of cancellation. If the question had been raised before the trial Court perhaps other facts would have been brought to light to show that the adhesive stamp in this case was written on under circumstances which make it a valid cancellation. Even assuming the facts as they appear on the face of the document, I think that the signature of the executant made by the scribe on the adhesive stamp under his direction in that behalf and in token of cancellation thereof is sufficient compliance with law. For these reasons this revision is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //