Gurmukh Singh vs Jaswant Kaur
- SCC(2011) 15 SCC 445
- Neutral2011 INSC 259
- SCR[2011] 4 SCR 222
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
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