Stamp sheet utilisation may be proved by cancellation marks or signatures, not only by full writing on the sheet.

Section 13 of the Indian Stamp Act read with Rule 7(1) of the Central Provinces and Berar Stamp Rules, 1942 was construed as a revenue-protecting provision, not a technical bar to genuine transactions. The requirement is satisfied where the facts show that an impressed stamp sheet was actually utilised when the instrument was executed, even if it was not written upon in every case. Cancellation marks such as a cross, signature, or similar indication may be sufficient evidence of use. A stricter view that every stamp sheet must always be physically written upon was rejected as too narrow.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 13 of the Indian Stamp Act read with Rule 7(1) of the Central Provinces and Berar Stamp Rules, 1942 requires that all impressed stamp sheets must be written upon in every case, or whether cancellation by a cross, signature, or similar indication of utilisation is sufficient compliance.

Analysis: The provision was construed in the light of its revenue-protecting object and not as a technical weapon to defeat genuine claims. The Court held that compliance with the rule depends on whether the stamp papers were in fact utilised when the instrument was drawn up, which is to be determined on the facts of each case from the appearance of the instrument and supporting evidence. If the sheet bears cancellation marks such as a cross or signature showing actual use at the time of execution, the requirement that the instrument be written on each sheet so used is satisfied and the same sheet cannot thereafter be applied to another instrument.

Conclusion: The stricter view that every stamp sheet must be physically written upon in all cases was held to be too narrow. Cancellation or other indicia of actual utilisation may amount to sufficient compliance with Section 13 and Rule 7(1), if the evidence so establishes.

---