T S SRINIVASA GOWDA Vs. SIDDIAH ALIAS APPAJAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the decree of the Civil Judge, Mysore, on appeal, dismissing his suit which had been decreed by the Munsiff.

(2.) The plaint stated a case of a loan of Rs.1,000 advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant in the morning of 1st April, 1957 followed by the execution of a promissory note by the defendant at about 1 P.M. in the afternoon of the same day. The promissory note was insufficiently Stamped. But there was at the foot of the paper containing the text of the promissory note, a receipt for consideration amount signed by the defendant and attested by two witnesses, and there was also on the back of the paper an endorsement of a payment of Rs.55 described as interest due in respect of the promissory note.

(3.) In dismissing the suit, the Civil Judge recorded a definite finding of fact that the plaintiff's case of a loan advanced in the morning and promissory note executed in the afternoon cannot be believed. He takes the view on an examination of the evidence adduced by the plaintiff himself that the loan, if any, was undoubtedly advanced simultaneously with the execution of the promissory note and that therefore the transaction cannot be split up into two independent transactions, one of loan and one of promissory note On this finding, he applied the law and held that the promissory note was wholly inadmissible in evidence and could not be used for any purpose. Regarding the endorsement relied upon as an acknowledgment saving limitation, the Civil Judge held that the acknowledgment could not possibly be related to an independent loan spoken to by the plaintiff, but is so clearly connected with the inadmissible promissory note itself that the plaintiff cannot make any use thereof.