Seshayya Vs. Subbamma

Seshayya vs Subbamma

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Aug 26, 1898

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/778849

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/778849
Court: Chennai
Decided On: Aug 26, 1898
Subject: Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - It only provides that a party making a payment may demand a receipt Even when a receipt is given and is not produced in evidence, evidence aliunde is admissible as the Illustration to Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act to which the Judge refers clearly shows.

Key legal issue: Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Seshayya

Respondent

Subbamma

Legal References

Reported In: (1898)8MLJ269

Excerpt

- - it only provides that a party making a payment may demand a receipt even when a receipt is given and is not produced in evidence, evidence aliunde is admissible as the illustration to section 91 of the indian evidence act to which the judge refers clearly shows.1. we cannot agree with the district judge in holding that section 58 of the indian stamp act precludes any evidence except a receipt being adduced to prove payment. it only provides that a party making a payment may demand a receipt even when a receipt is given and is not produced in evidence, evidence aliunde is admissible as the illustration to section 91 of the indian evidence act to which the judge refers clearly shows. there is no conflict between that illustration and section 92 of the act. the judge was also in error in holding that the endorsement on exhibit i, was inadmissible for want of registration for the endorsement does not purport to extinguish the mortgage. (section 17 clause n of the indian registration act.)2. as the district judge, in consequence of his erroneous views on these matters, has decided the case without reference to the .evidence bearing on the question of payment, we must set aside his decree and remand the appeal for disposal in accordance with law. costs in the second appeal will be provided for in the revised decree of the district judge.

Full Judgment

1. We cannot agree with the District Judge in holding that Section 58 of the Indian Stamp Act precludes any evidence except a receipt being adduced to prove payment. It only provides that a party making a payment may demand a receipt Even when a receipt is given and is not produced in evidence, evidence aliunde is admissible as the Illustration to Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act to which the Judge refers clearly shows. There is no conflict between that Illustration and Section 92 of the Act. The Judge was also in error in holding that the endorsement on Exhibit I, was inadmissible for want of registration for the endorsement does not purport to extinguish the mortgage. (Section 17 Clause n of the Indian Registration Act.)

2. As the District Judge, in consequence of his erroneous views on these matters, has decided the case without reference to the .evidence bearing on the question of payment, we must set aside his decree and remand the appeal for disposal in accordance with law. Costs in the second appeal will be provided for in the revised decree of the District Judge.

Same Parties Seshayya vs Subbamma Same Subject Property

Property