032-NLR-NLR-V-02-KENAKAL-v.-VELAPILLAI.pdf
( 80 )
18»6-KENAKAL v. VELAPILLAI.
January 17
andji. •D. C., Jaffna, 24,476.
Instrument insufficiently stamped—Objection to it when to be taken.
. The time to take objection to aainstrumeut on the ground of itsbeing insufficiently stamped is when it is tendered in evidence.
HR HE factq of the case sufficiently appear in the judgment of- Withers, J.
Rdmandthan, S.-G., for plaintiff, appellant.
Dornhorat and Wendt, for defendant, respondent.
Cur. adv. wit.
21st January, 1896. Lawrie, J.—
The learned District Judge has pointed out that he sees manydifficulties in the plaintiff’s way. He presses that it is almostimpossible that the plaintiff can proceed, but it would have beenwell had he framed issues of law and fact, and had he tried theseissues and given a judgment on the merits of the action.
• It was premature to discuss the meaning of the agreement orthe amount of deficiency of the* stamps before that agreement was'proved or.tendered in evidence.
I recommend that the judgment under appeal should be setaside, and that the action should be remitted'to the District Courtto be proceeded with according to law. I would at the same timeurge on these parties the advantage of mutual concession and of afriendly settlement.
Disputes which arise in the course of the performance of religiousceremonies, and the management of temples in which the partiesfeel deeply interested, cannot be satisfactorily settled by a Court oflaw, which necessarily has but little knowledge of or no sympathywith the feelings of the opposing parties. In a matter like this it isimpossible for the Court to do justice. The parties are to exercisemutual, forbearance, or to submit their disputes to the arbitrationof those conversant with the customs of the country or learned inthe mysteries of the temple.
Withers, J.—
This dismissal was premature. On the day of trial, instead ofsettling the issues to be tried, the District Judge entertainedobjections to the structure of the plaint, one of which, and that avery material objection, was that ad agreement pleaded and reliedbn in the plaint was not sufficiently stamped.
( 81 )
The time to take objection to an instrument on the ground ofits being insufficiently stamped is when it is tendered in evidence.
In most cases that defect may be cured so as to render theinstrument admissible. Mr. Dornhorst no doubt pressed upon usthat the plaint itself was insufficiently stamped Jby reason of acertain claim in it not having been valued as the Civil Code andStamp Ordinance combined require. This may or may not be so,but assuming that it is, the plaintiff may withdraw it from theCourt if so advised.
But till the issues are definitively settled in this case I find itsomewhat difficult to see how. that point can be taken anddetermined.
I would remit the case for the District Judge to settle the issueswhich will have to be determined, and proceed to the trial of them.The appellant is entitled to have his costs in appeal. Set asideaccordingly.
,1896.
January 17and 21.
WJTHEB8, 3.