AIYAPPANKUTTY Vs. MATHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O. S. No. 140 of 1953 of the moovattupuzha Munsiff's Court, an endorsee of a document dated 3. 2. 1950, is the petitioner before us. THE instrument reads as follows:

(2.) THE lower court has stated: "the admissibility of the pronote is objected to by the defendant on the ground that it is not properly stamped and that as such, it is inadmissible in evidence. THE note is for Rs. 1,500 payable on demand after one year. Under Art. 49 (b) of the Stamp Act, stamp duty, has to be paid on it as bond No. 14. Stamp duty on this note should therefore be Rs. 15/ -. Only stamps to the value of 4 annas is affixed here. Since it is a promissory note there is no question of levying any penalty. (vide S. 37, Stamp Act ). As such I hold, the pronote being insufficiently stamped is not admissible in evidence". and it is this ruling that is challenged by this petition.

(3.) IN A. I. R. 1935 Madras 23, Varadachariar, J. had to deal with a "thavanai document", a type of document current among nattukottai Chetties. He came to the conclusion that the document was a promissory note and then dealt with the contention that it was a promissory note payable on demand as follows: "the second contention is that the reference to three months' thavanai is only a provision for calculation of compound interest with three monthly rests and does not make the document payable otherwise than on demand. There was at one time some difference of opinion in the reported decisions in this Court, as to whether in the case of these thavanai documents among Nattukottai Chetties, the money becomes due immediately on the expiry of the first thavanai or only upon an express demand after the expiry of the thavanai, but there was at no time any doubt whatever that during the first thavanai the money was not repayable. That this is the well established usage amongst chetties in the case of these thavanai documents is shown by the plaintiff's admission as his own witness in the case, that the document is not repayable within three months as it is given on three months' thavanai. This contention therefore also fails". The case is analogous to the present, for here also no demand for payment was possible during the year immediately following the execution of the promissory note.