KANHAI LAL Vs. BRIJ NANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the judgment of the Small Cause Court Judge, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for the recovery of Rs. 300 paid by him to the defendant and for which the defendant had executed a promissory note and a receipt. The suit was dismissed on the finding that the promissory note was improperly stamped and that oral evidence to prove the loan transaction was inadmissible in view of the fact that the promissory note contained all the terms of the contract.

(2.) The material portion of the promissory note in suit is in these terms :

(3.) It has been urged before me that the learned judges did not fully consider the principles laid down in the Full Bench case, reported in Sheonath Prasad v. Sarjoo Nonia, 1943 ALL. L. J. 189 (F. B.) and that they did not take into consideration that the term of the contract with regard to the function of the promissory note as contemplated by Dar J. at p. 194 was not embodied in the promissory note they held to contain all the terms of the contract. The contention really is that the promissory note should state whether it was being given by the debtor to the creditor as an absolute payment or as a conditional payment or as a collateral security for the loan. It does not appear from the judgment of the other judges constituting that Full Bench that a contract of loan invariably has any such term and it is such term which is usually omitted from a promissory note and due to which omission their Lordships thought that a promissory note rarely, if ever, contained all the terms of the contract between the parties. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Judges in the 1945 case missed noticing an essential feature of the Full Bench decision in 1943.