Admitted execution dispenses with proof under the Evidence Act, even where a document is otherwise unstamped and inadmissible.

Where execution of a document is admitted, proof is dispensed with under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. On that basis, the plaintiff was not required to prove the two hand-letters again, even though they were said to be unstamped and otherwise inadmissible on stamp-law grounds. The defendant's own admission and plea of substitution and partial discharge made further proof unnecessary, so the objection to maintainability failed and the dismissal of the suit was held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff was bound to prove his claim by producing the two unstamped hand-letters in evidence, despite the defendant having admitted their execution and having set up a plea of substitution and partial discharge.

Analysis: The admitted execution of a document attracts the rule that a fact admitted need not be proved. On that basis, the plaintiff was not required to have the documents received in evidence in order to establish the claim. Their alleged inadmissibility for want of stamp did not defeat the suit once execution was admitted, because the defendant's own pleadings displaced the need for further proof by the plaintiff. The principle stated in Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was applied to hold that admitted execution obviates proof even where the document is otherwise inadmissible on account of stamp law.

Conclusion: The objection to maintainability failed, and the decree dismissing the suit was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the dismissal was set aside, and the plaintiff was granted a decree for the claimed amount with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: When execution of a document is admitted, the document need not be proved under the Evidence Act, even if it is otherwise inadmissible for want of stamp.

---