Skip to content


J.D. Lobo Vs. Marajal Doggu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 704 of 1950
Judge
Reported inAIR1953Mad424; (1952)2MLJ747
ActsStamp Act, 1899 - Sections 19; Indian Law
AppellantJ.D. Lobo
RespondentMarajal Doggu
Advocates:A. Narayana Pai, Adv.
DispositionRevision dismissed
Cases ReferredSivasubramania v. Kalanka
Excerpt:
- - the suit in the court below failed on this construction of section 19, indian stamp act. the point raised is one of first impression and there are no doubt considerations of leniency to the subject which may well support this view contended for by mr. kalanka-rayan',1941 2 mad lj 301. 3. i am not also satisfied that the language of section 19 is in the qualified form which mr......raised in this case is whether a foreign promissory note duly stamped in accordance with the indian stamp act, is to be stamped again before the actual endorsement of the promissory note in favour of a person who thereafter files a suit on the promissory note. the view taken by the court below is that under section 19, indian stamp act it is incumbent upon the first holder of the promissory note to affix a proper stamp to the promissory note, before its negotiation in favour of the present plaintiff. the suit in the court below failed on this construction of section 19, indian stamp act.2. what mr. narayana pai urges is that section 19 does not provide that in the case of foreign instruments duly stamped in accordance with the indian law, there must be a re-stamping of such.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Raghava Rao, J.

1. The question raised in this case is whether a foreign promissory note duly stamped in accordance with the Indian Stamp Act, is to be stamped again before the actual endorsement of the promissory note in favour of a person who thereafter files a suit on the promissory note. The view taken by the Court below is that under Section 19, Indian Stamp Act it is incumbent upon the first holder of the promissory note to affix a proper stamp to the promissory note, before its negotiation in favour of the present plaintiff. The suit in the Court below failed on this construction of Section 19, Indian Stamp Act.

2. What Mr. Narayana Pai urges is that Section 19 does not provide that in the case of foreign instruments duly stamped in accordance with the Indian law, there must be a re-stamping of such instruments over again by virtue of Section 10, Indian Stamp Act. The point raised is one of first impression and there are no doubt considerations of leniency to the subject which may well support this view contended for by Mr. Narayana Fai. But there is a ruling of a learned Judge of this Court sitting singly reported in -- 'Sivasubramania v. Kalankarayan', 1941 2 Mad LJ 301, which is adverse to the submission of the present petitioner. In the interests of judicial comity, quite apart from any consideration of the correctness of the decision, I am prepared in this case to follow the judgment reported in -- 'Sivasubramania v. Kalanka-rayan', 1941 2 Mad LJ 301.

3. I am not also satisfied that the language of Section 19 is in the qualified form which Mr. Narayana Pai contends for on a proper interpretation of the language of the section. Mr. Narayana Pai, as I have already stated, is raising the point that if the instrument was already properly stamped according to our law, when it happened to lie in the hands of the first holder, it does not stand to reason that to such an instrument Section 19 should be applied so as to entail the obligation on the later holder of the promissory note to have it affixed with a stamp once again before he can found himself upon the negotiation of such a promissory note in his favour. That may be, but for the reasons that I have given, I have to dismiss this revision petition but in the circumstances without costs.


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