Pronote without stamps
DJPoint
(Querist) 22 November 2011
This query is : Resolved
What's the value of a pronote without stamps on it? Can a civil suit under order 37 of CPC be initiated on the basis of such a pronote without stamps on it? Also a signature of the issuer is required on those stamps or not? The signature of issuer is present on pronote but not on stamps that should have been affixed on it.
Is this technicality mandatory or not, or is it just an irregularity or is it an illegality?
A civil judge said to me that a pronote without stamps on it is just a piece of paper with no value of whatsoever. Is this true or not? He further said that if a pronote when issued was without stamps, and then later on when suit was filed under order 37 of CPC, the complainant put stamps on it for the purpose of filing the suit, then it means he committed forgery.
Kindly share your opinion on this matter?
Thanks.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 22 November 2011
if you filea summary suit the defendant will get unconditional leave to defend .
a prommisory note needs to have stamps affixed and signature of issuer on the same .
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 22 November 2011
I fully endorse the views of civil judge to the effect that the promissory note without stamps bearing signature of alleged loanee is mere a simple paper having no value before eyes of law but I differ on the matter of forgery if the same is not established beyond any reasonable doubt.
DJPoint
(Querist) 22 November 2011
So if the Complainant affixed stamps later on and there's no signature of the issuer on those stamps, will it be considered forgery?
Can the suit be dismissed on the basis that no stamps were affixed on the pronote when it was issued, and that there is no signature on those stamps.
There's proof that when pronote was issued, there were no stamps on it.
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 24 November 2011
Dear Mr. DJPoint,
In terms of Section 17 of the Stamp Act, a promissory note should be stamped either before or at the time of its execution. Execution is defined to mean signing or affixing signature.
It has been held that the stamp can be affixed and cancelled immediately after the signature; in such a case, the signing and stamping are continuous acts in the same transactin or are practically simultaneous. [Suraj Mull v. Hudson (1901) ILR 23 Mad.]
But this view was not accepted in Rohini Chandrakant Vijayakar v. A1 Fernandes (AIR 1956 Bom. 421).
Again, the decision in Rohini Chandrakant was dissented in Kuruvilla v. Varkey (1969) ILR 2 Kerala 630; and Devendrappa v. K. Basalingayya AIR 1979 Kant 21 - in those cases since the refujee relief stamp was not immediately available at the time of execution, they were bought immediately thereafter and affixed alongside the revenue stamps thereon.
According to Section 12 of the Indian Stamp Act, an adhesive stamp affixed to a promissory note should be cancelled in such a manner that it cannot be used again. Otherwise, the note shall be deemed to be unstamped. The maker's signature or initials with a date across the stamp would cancel the stamp effectively. The drawing of a single line across the stamp was held insufficient and the note inadmissible in evidence. [Dhirajlal v. Ranchhod (1978) 76 Bom. LR 189].
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 24 November 2011
Mr.R.Ramachandran has very lucidly explained
and no addition except "i agree" is needed to
be added here.
DJPoint
(Querist) 24 November 2011
Thank you all, especially Mr.R.Ramachandran for your advice.
