Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Gurmukh Singh vs Jaswant Kaur

Supreme Court4 April 2011Gyan Sudha Misra · Markandey Katju

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A pronote that has not been duly stamped in accordance with the Indian Stamps Act cannot be relied upon to enforce a claim for recovery of money, even if the document is otherwise established to have been executed by the parties.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5140 OF 2004

Gurmukh Singh .. Appellant

-versus-

Jaswant Kaur .. Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Markandey Katju, J.

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated

11.8.2003 in R.S.A. No.1069 of 2002 of the High Court of Punjab and

Haryana at Chandigarh.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for recovery of

Rs.2,31,000/-. He claimed that the defendant had executed a pronote

and receipt dated 2.5.1994 whereby the defendant had borrowed a sum

2

of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same along

with interest @ 2% per annum on demand. Since the defendant had not

paid the aforesaid amount, the suit was filed.

4. The defendant-respondent contested the suit and denied the

execution of the pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff. She

alleged that the aforesaid pronote and receipt were forged and fictitious

documents.

5. The trial court on the basis of evidence found that the pronote and

receipt were executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

However, the trial court rejected the plaintiff's claim by holding that

the said documents were not duly stamped as required under the

provisions of Indian Stamps Act. It was found by the trial court that the

stamps which were affixed on the pronote were removed from another

document and affixed on the said pronote.

6. The first appellate court and the High Court have agreed with the

view of the trial court. Thus all the three courts below decided against

the appellant.

3 7. The findings of the courts below are findings of fact and we

cannot interfere with the same in this appeal. The finding is that the

stamps which have been affixed were removed from other documents,

and hence, it has rightly been said that such a pronote cannot be taken

into consideration.

8. Thus there is no force in this appeal and it is dismissed. No costs.

...................................J.

(Markandey Katju)

...................................J.

(Gyan Sudha Misra)

New Delhi;

April 04, 2011

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free