SRI YERRI SWAMI BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS, THAIYIVEERA BHADRAPPA AND ORS. Vs. MADIGA CHINNA VANNURAPPA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs are the appellants in these two second appeals. Their suits for recovery of moneys due under promissory notes were dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence these second appeals.

(2.) THE promissory note which is the subject -matter of second appeal No. 1361 of 1945 is dated 2nd March, 1939, and is Ex. P. The promissory note which is the subject -matter of S.A. No. 1362 is dated 3rd March, 1939, Ex.P -1. These promissory notes were affixed with postage and revenue stamp of one anna each. Even in the written statements filed by the defendants, objection was taken that these promissory notes were not enforceable as they were not properly stamped. Issue 3 was framed to cover this contention.

(3.) THE learned appellate Judge in my opinion came to the correct conclusion in holding that in view of the circumstances set forth above there was no admission of the documents in evidence within the meaning of Section 36 of the Stamp Act. As in the present case there was a specific issue on the point and as the documents were marked at the preliminary trial without disposing of that issue, it cannot be said that the documents were admitted in evidence within the meaning of Section 36 so as to preclude the defendants from raising question that the documents were not properly stamped. Even if the learned District Munsiff had decided issue 3 in favour of the plaintiffs and came to the conclusion that they were admissible, it would have been perfectly open to the appellate Court to reverse that finding and reject the documents as it must be deemed that an admission under Section 36 must be only subject to his finding on issue 3. As I agree therefore with the finding of learned Subordinate Judge on this point, it is unnecessary for me to go into the other questions that have been raised. The result is that these appeals fail and are dismissed with costs.