PAPAYA Vs. DUNDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the plaintiff, is questioning the order passed by the learned Trial Judge declining to admit the suit document on the ground that it is a promissory note and not a debt of acknowledgement.

(2.) THE matter arises in the following manner. THE petitioner, it appears that, had opted to retire from the firm on 25-3-1995. Hence, a settlement was arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendant-respondent and a document was drawn up on the same day i.e., on 25-3-1995. A copy of which is produced at Annexure-B indicates that the respondent is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Since, the respondent did not come forward to pay the said amount, the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S. No. 141 of 1997 for recovery of the said amount on the basis of Annexure-B. During the course of trial, when the document was put in evidence, it appears, an objection was taken by the respondent to the effect that the suit document would amount to promissory note and since it is insufficiently stamped, the same is admissible. THE said objection by the respondent was accepted by the learned Trial Judge and declined to admit the said document on the ground that it amounts to promissory note and it is insufficiently stamped.

(3.) A perusal of Annexure-B does not disclose that the said document could be classified as a promissory note. Indeed the definition of promissory note as defined in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is that it would be a instrument which is required to be in writing containing an unconditional undertaking signed by the maker, to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order of, a certain person, or to the bearer of the instrument.