S RAMIAH THEVAR Vs. BALASUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision brought by the plaintiff in a simple money suit of a small cause nature against the respondent. The suit was brought for the recovery of Rs. 550 and interest at 12 per cent. per annum thereon on a promissory note. The defendant resisted the suit. He pleaded that there was no cause of action for the suit. More particularly he pleaded that the suit promissory note could not be sued upon, because he merely signed his name on a stamped paper which was blank, and it had been filled up at the instance of the plaintiff to make it appear that it was for Rs. 550. The truth, according to the defendant was, his signature on a stamped blank paper was taken by the plaintiff in accordance with the plaintiff-s practice in such transactions. According to the defendant, he had borrowed a sum of Rs. 220 agreeing to repay it in monthly instalments of Rs. 22 and that by June, 1976, that loan had been discharged by him in that manner. Nevertheless, according to the defendant, the plaintiff had obtained stamp paper with his signature only in accordance with the practice followed by the plaintiff in such transactions. The plaintiff, it was alleged, undertook to return the blank stamped paper when the loan of Rs. 220 was fully discharged by the defendant. In fact, however, even after the loan of Rs. 220 was fully discharged, the plaintiff did not return the stamped paper, but had given a false information to the effect that he had destroyed that piece of paper.

(2.) AT the trial, the suit promissory note was marked in evidence by the plaintiff. He also gave oral evidence as P.W. 1. Another witness called on by him at the trial was P.W. 2, who represented that he was the scribe of the document. Their evidence was that the defendant did not sign any blank paper, but entered his signature only after the text of the promissory note had been written. The defendant in his testimony denied these allegations. He deposed that he only gave the blank stamped paper carrying his signature, on the undertaking that the plaintiff would return it after the earlier loan of Rs. 220 was discharged.

(3.) IN this revision, learned counsel, Mr. Balachander appearing for the plaintiff, urged that the dismissal of the suit by the -Court below on the ground that there was no cause of action for the suit, was without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that the two material issues which were framed for trial were - (1) Whether the failure of consideration pleaded by the defendant is true" (2) Whether the discharge pleaded by the defendant is true" Mr. Balachander pointed out that there was no distinct issue to the effect that there was no cause of action for the suit. IN the grounds of revision, the contention was not stated precisely on these terms. What was urged in the grounds was that the Court below ought not to have expected the plaintiff to prove the case when the issues were framed in the suit, properly imposing the burden on the defendant.