028-NLR-NLR-V-20-NAKURAN-v.-RANHAMY.pdf
( 135 )
Present: Wood Benton C.J. and De Samp ay o J.
• NAKUBAN v. EANHAMY.204—D. G. Anuradhapura, 719.
—-Stomp—Cancellation—No date.
When the signature over the stamp on the 'note was not dated,the stamp was held not to have been properly cancelled.
1 HE facts appear from the judgment.
Arulanandan, for the plaintiff, appellant.—The stamp has not beendated; but it has been written over, and cannot be used again.14 N. L. B. 458 is an authority for the proposition that the correctdate is not essential for an effective cancellation of the stamp. Theonly object of the provisions of the Stamp Ordinance with regardto cancellation is to prevent the use of the stamp again. This issecured by the stamp being written over.
No appearance for the respondent.
July 5; 1917. Wood Benton C.J.—
The plaintifE sued the defendant on a promissory note grantedby him to S. L. M. Kappa Udaya, and endorsed by the latter to theplaintiff. The learned District Judge has dismissed the plaintiff’saction on the ground that the signature over the stamp on the notehas not been dated, mid that consequently it has not been cancelled“so as effectually to obliterate (the stamp), ” or “ so that it cannotbe used again, ” or so “ as not to admit of ” such use', as required byjsection 9 (1) (a) and (3) of the Stamp Ordinance, 1909.1 There isno direct local authority upon the point. But in Kistnappa Chettyv. Silva 2 Lascelles C.J. and Middleton J. held, on the facts, that astamp ante-dated by a few days on cancellation had been dulycancelled, and, on the law, that the provisions of section 9 (3) ofthe Stamp Ordinance, 1909,1 as to the mode of cancellation areoptional, so long as the stamp is so cancelled as not to be capableof being used again. Section 9 (3) of the Stamp Ordinance, 1909,1following section 8 (1) of the Stamp Act, 1891,3 provides for thename or initials of the person required by sub-section (1) (a) of thesame enactment to cancel the stamp being authenticated by “ thetrue date ’’ of the cancellation. I bViinlr that this provision showsthat- the Legislature attached importance to the date of cancellation
1 No. 22 of 1909.* (1911) 14 N. L. R. 458.
' 3 54 and 55 Viet. e. 39.
1917*
{ 136 )
1M7.
Wood
Rendon 0.3.
Nabumnv.
Banhtmy
being given. It is no doubt true that, even if the date of cancella-tion were written on the stamp, it might conceivably be used again.But in that case the stamp would at least have been ** effectuallyobliterated, ” in compliance with the directory provisions of section9 (3) of the Ordinance.
In the absence of any judicial authority sanctioning the proposi-tion that a stamp can be cancelled without bearing on the face of itthe date of its alleged cancellation, I am not prepared to differ fromthe decision of the learned District Judge on the question involvedin this appeal, and I would affirm his decision, with the costs of theappeal, and, in view of the delay on the part of the defendant intaking the objection as to stamps, with .the costs only of the day ofthe argument, namely, May 22, 1917, in the District Court.
De Sampayo J.—I agree.
Appeal dismissed.