BHAGWANDAS TOTARAM AGARVAL Vs. CHHAGANLAL RAICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The plaintiffs sued to recover Rs. 650 due on an instrument passed for Rs. 1,841 on September 18, 1937, and signed by " the firm Shivkisen Totaram by the pen of the defendant." The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was a partner of the firm of Shivkisen Totaram, and that the other two partners had paid their shares in the amount of the instrument, and wanted to recover the balance from the defendant. Although the instrument is described as a promissory note for Rs. 1,841, it was stamped with only one anna stamp, and it was contended that the stamp was insufficient and, therefore, the instrument was inadmissible in evidence. The learned Judge below held that the instrument was a deedi of agreement as it made provision for the place of payment and, therefore, admitted it in evidence on payment of the deficit stamp and penalty. He held the amount claimed to be due from the defendant and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs.

(2.) IT is now urged that the instrument is really a promissory note and not a mere agreement, and reliance is placed on the ruling in Deva Ratna v. Fakir Adam (1902) 4 Bom. L.R. 428, where it was held that a promissory note did not lose its character as such merely because it contained a: promise to pay at a certain place. I think that this contention must be upheld and the instrument on which the suit is based is really a promissory note and not a bond, and the lower Court erred in treating it as a deed of agreement and admitting it in evidence on the payment of the deficit stamp and penalty.

(3.) THE rule is, therefore, discharged with costs.