K R KRISHNAN Vs. P SHANMUGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the petitioner herein. The plaintiff filed the suit on a promissory note dated August 15, 1990, to recover a sum of Rs. 18, 375. Before numbering the suit, it was posted before the court, since, according to the office, proper stamp duty was not paid on the promissory note. The lower court came to the conclusion that it is a promissory note otherwise payable than on demand and, therefore, stamp duty is payable as per article 49(b) of the Stamp Act. The trial court, therefore, directed the plaintiff to pay stamp duty and penalty before admitting the plaint and before August 16, 1993. It is against that order that the present revision has been preferred by the plaintiff. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/petitioner herein submitted that the suit promissory note is properly stamped since it is not a promissory note otherwise payable than on demand. According to learned counsel, even though the words "on demand" do not find a place in the promissory note, it is a promissory note payable only on demand. Therefore, it will come under article 49(a) of the Stamp Act. There is no time limit fixed in the promissory note for the payment of the amount due under the promissory note. Therefore, it cannot be considered as a promissory note payable otherwise than on demand. Since it is a promissory note as per section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and since it is not a promissory note otherwise payable than on demand, the plaintiff/petitioner cannot be directed to pay the stamp duty under article 49(b) of the Stamp Act, and penalty leviable thereunder. It was, therefore, pleaded that the order passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside.

(2.) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the defendant/respondent herein while supporting the order passed by the trial court, contended that since there are no words "on demand" found in the promissory note, it should be considered as a promissory note, otherwise payable than on demand. In view of the decisions in Thennappa Chettiar v. Andiyappa Chettiar, 1971 AIR(Mad) 290 and Devassaya v. Shamsuddin 1976 KLT 24, the trial court was correct in directing the plaintiff to pay the stamp duty and penalty under the provisions of article 49(b) of the Stamp Act.I have heard the rival contentions.

(3.) IN Sreenivasan v. Subbarama Sastrikal, it was held that