MANTRALA SIMHADRI Vs. PALLI VARALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises in this revision case is solely one of law, as the material facts are not in controversy. The petitioner sued for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 499, being the amount of the debt borrowed by the defendants from him on the 6th September, 1951. He relied upon a payment made on the ist September, 1954, as saving the debt from the bar of limitation. The plaintiff produced in the lower Court, Exhibit A-1, a promissory note executed by the defendants in his favour, on the reverse side of which there is an endorsement of payment. The lower Court dismissed the suit holding that the promissory note not having been sufficiently stamped, the suit laid on the foot of that note was not maintainable.

(2.) Mr. Pooraiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the promissory note having been admitted in evidence, section 36 of the Stamp Act prohibited the rejection of the document at a subsequent stage of the suit. In this contention, he is supported by the decision of Mr. Justice Viswanatha Sastri in Basavayya Naidu v. Venkateswarlu. He has alternatively contend d thatt the endorsement of payment, evidenced by Exhibit A-1, constitutes an acknowledgment of the original debt and the suit haviag been laid on the basis of the anterior indebtedness, it should have been decreed Mr. E. Venkatesam, learned counsel for the respondents, has however contend d that the admission of Exhibit A-1 did not satisfy the requirements of section 36 of the Sfamp Act inasmuch as there was no decision on contest when the endorsement of admission was made on the promissory note, that it wav a mere mechanical act and that therefore the view taken by the lower Court was correct.

(3.) From the endorsements on the plaint, the following facts emerge :- The plaint was presented on the and of September, 1957, along with the promissory note. Or. the 3rd of September there is an endorsement on the plaint which reads as follows :- "Penalty of Re.1 is to be paid on the suit document as the same is a pronote for Rs. 500 but stamped with Anna 1 label instead of As. a. Returned. Time 7 days." The plaint was re-presented on the gth September, 1957. The penalty of Re. 1 as required by the office endorsement has been paid There is a further endorsement on the plaint, dated 12th September, 1957, which read; :- "It is to be stated how the suit is maintainable on a pronote insufficiently stamped......."