P MOORTHY Vs. A R KOTHANDARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in suit No. 401 of 1974 on the file of the III Judge, Court of small Causes, Madras is the petitioner in this revision. The respondent is the plaintiff in that suit. The plaintiff laid the suit for recovery of the amounts due under a promissory note dated 11-1-1971. Several contentions were raised by the defendant and the main among them centered around the question as to whether the document upon which the plaintiff laid the suit is properly stamped within the meaning of the provisions of the Stamp Act and the rules framed thereunder so that it can be counted and acted upon as a promissory note. The document is written up on a stamp paper of the value of Rs. 150. The III Judge, court of Small Causes, Madras considered the questions raised in the case and found that the writing up of the promissory note in a stamp paper of the value of Rs. 1. 50 would not demolish the character of the document being a promissory note and would not make it a document not duly stamped within the meaning of the provisions of the Stamp Act and the rules framed thereunder. He found the other points also against the defendant and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed as prayed for. The defendant preferred a new trial application No. 194 of 1974 and the new trial bench of the Court of Small Causes considered the case of the defendant and the Judges of the new trial bench did not agree with the finding of the first court that the document in question is a promissory note obviously on the reasoning that the document is not duly stamped. However they treated the document as a voucher executed by the defendant in respect of the borrowing concerned. The Judges of the new trial Bench also declined to accept the other contentions of the defendant and the new trial application was dismissed. The present revision is directed against the judgment and decree of the new trial Bench of the Court of Small Causes, madras.

(2.) THIRU Vittal V. Souli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that under the provisions of the Stamp Act and the rules framed thereunder, the promissory note must be stamped by the use of adhesive stamps and the engrossment of the document on stamp papers of the value of Rs. 1. 50 is irregular and will not make the document a duly stamped one so as to be acted upon in evidence in the courts.

(3.) THIRU R. N. Kothandaraman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff, in the suit, submits that it would suffice the provisions of the Stamp act and the rules framed thereunder if the proper stamp duty is paid and the mode adopted in the present case, viz, writing up the documents on a stamp paper of the value of Rs. 1. 50 will not make the document an improperly stamped or a * not duly stamped one, so as to make it inadmissible for consideration in courts.