KOCHUTHRESSIA Vs. DEVADAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question before the court below was whether the document dated 1-4-1980 was a promissory note, admissible in evidence as a properly stamped instrument; and it took the view that the document was just an agreement, and not a promissory note. It is that view which is now being questioned in this revision.

(2.) The document was executed by the respondents in favour of the plaintiff, and its contents disclosed the following:-

(3.) One of the contentions of the defendants was that the document had not specified that the amount was payable "to the order" of the plaintiff, and that playability "to the order" was one of the essential elements of a promissory note, under S.4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Section reads:-