9911796707
TMI Blog1947 (4) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed from one Nallvangalammal a sum of ₹ 100 on 2nd May, 1940 and a sum of ₹ 90 on the 24th July, 1940 agreeing to pay the amounts with interest at six per cent. per annum. Nallvangalammal died and the plaintiff claimed to be her heir and though this fact was not admitted, it is not necessary any longer to deal with this objection because the plaintiff obtained a succession certificate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt raised the contention that the suit was not sustainable on the two documents because they were inadmissible in evidence for any purpose as they were unstamped. The learned District Munsiff agreed with this contention and dismissed the suit. 5. It is not necessary for me to decide as to the exact nature of these two documents to determine whether they are admissible in evidence. Assuming that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pectfully agree. The learned Judge therein points out after referring to the provisions of Section 58 of the Evidence Act that when the fact of an execution of a document is admitted it need not be proved and this would be so even when the document in question is not admissible on account of any provision of the Stamp Act. 6. I therefore set aside the decree of the learned District Munsiff dism ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
