LAWS(MAD)-1959-8-18

MEENAMMAL Vs. S N OAVAI REDDIAR

Decided On August 14, 1959
MEENAMMAL Appellant
V/S
S.N.OAVAI REDDIAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff's case was that she had advanced a loan of Rs. 320 to defendants 1 and 2, and that she subsequently on the same day obtained from them Ex. A. 1, which purported to be a promissory note for that amount. Ex. A. 1, however, could not be relied upon as a promissory note and admitted in evidence as such, because it was insufficiently stamped. The plaintiff therefore laid the suit on the original cause of action, the debt itself, independent of the promissory note. There were, however, endorsements of payment on Ex. A. 1, which were marked as Exs. A 2, A. 3 and A. 4. The plaintiff relied on these endorsements of payment to save the claim based on the original cause of action, from being barred by limitation.

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge accepted the plaintiff's evidence, that the promissory note in question, Ex. A. 1, was executed as security for the debt subsequently on the date on which the advance of loan was made, and the learned Subordinate Judge upheld the plaintiff's contention, that the suit was maintainable on the original cause of action, the debt, even though Ex. A. 1 was inadmissible in evidence as a promissory note. The learned Judge however, was of the view that the endorsement. Exs. A. 2 to A. 4 on which the plaintiff relied, could not save the claim to recover the debt itself from being barred by the law of limitation, as, in the opinion of the learned Judge, Exs. A. 2 to A. 4 did not purport to acknowledge the debt itself. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed. The plaintiff seeks to have that judgment set aside in revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that, the suit itself was maintainable on the original debt, should not be allowed to prevail. He referred to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Perumal Chettiar v. Kamakshi Ammal, ILR 1938 Mad 933: (AIR 1938 Mad 785) (FB) and tried to bring the present case within the class of cases enumerated at p. 943 (of ILR Mad): (at p. 787 of AIR):