V.R. SONAI AND ANR. Vs. CHINNIAH KONAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO common questions of law arise in these two cases. The appellants, in both these cases executed promissory notes in Singapore stamped with Indian stamp. The instruments were endorsed in favour of the respondent in these two cases in Singapore. On suits being filed in India on the basis of these two promissory notes, the defendants contended that the suit promissory notes had not been properly stamped as required by Section 19 of the Indian Stamp Act. They also contended they were foreign instruments and, having been executed in Singapore, the Singapore Money -lenders Act would apply and therefore no suit could be laid on them. The learned District Munsif who tried these suits accepted the contention of the defendants and dismissed the suits. The learned Subordinate Judge, who heard the appeals, has taken a contrary view on both the points, allowed the appeals and remanded the suits for fresh disposal. Hence these two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.

(2.) I am satisfied that the conclusion of the lower appellate Court is correct Section 19 of the Stamp Act reads thus:

(3.) THE next point is whether it is an inland instrument or a foreign instrument. I think that question does not arise at all on the facts of this case. Sections 11 and 12 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which deal with the definition of inland instrument and foreign instrument are purely for the purpose of that Act and it cannot have any relevance for deciding the question whether, when a suit is instituted in India on a promissory note executed and endorsed in Singapore outside India the Singapore Money -lenders Act would apply or not. It appears to me, therefore, that the Courts below have unnecessarily gone into the question whether the instruments in question in this case are inland instruments or foreign instruments. But whether, because of the Singapore Money -lenders Act, the suits can be maintained or not is a different point which has got to be decided upon different considerations. That question may be gone into by the trial Court without reference to what the lower appellate Court has decided in this case.