Supreme Court reinstates Trial Court's decision on unstamped hundis, emphasizing Stamp Act provisions.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment, and reinstated the Trial Court's decision regarding the admissibility of two unstamped hundis in evidence. The Court emphasized the provisions of section 36 of the Stamp Act, stating that once a document is admitted in evidence, its admissibility cannot be questioned on stamp grounds. The hundis had been properly proved, and the Trial Court's decision to admit them was upheld, with costs to be borne by the parties.

---

---

Issues:
Admissibility of two hundis in evidence due to stamping issue.

Analysis:
The appeal involved a determination of the admissibility of two hundis in evidence. The plaintiffs, as commission agents, claimed dues from the defendant who had drawn two mudatti hundis in their favor. The defendant admitted the execution of the hundis but contended they were drawn for future gold purchase and thus not honored due to non-receipt of gold. The crucial issue was whether the hundis, being unstamped, were admissible in evidence. The Trial Court held in favor of admissibility, emphasizing that the documents had been exhibited, numbered, and referred to in evidence, thus falling under the provisions of section 36 of the Stamp Act. The High Court, however, overturned this decision, citing the Marwar Stamp Act of 1947 and contending that the hundis could not be admitted in evidence post the new law's enactment. The High Court further held that the admission of the hundis was a mistake and could be corrected on appeal, contrary to the provisions of section 36 of the Stamp Act.

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, highlighted the categorical nature of section 36 of the Stamp Act, which bars questioning the admission of a document on stamp grounds once admitted in evidence. The Court emphasized that the decision on admissibility must be made when the document is tendered in evidence, and once marked as an exhibit, the matter is closed. The Court noted that the hundis had been properly proved, with their execution admitted by the defendant, and the Trial Court had correctly applied the law in admitting them in evidence. Therefore, the High Court's refusal to act upon the hundis was deemed erroneous in law. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and reinstated the Trial Court's decision, ordering costs to be borne throughout by the parties.

---