M RAMAMURTHY Vs. S REDDI SAHEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant in this second-appeal. His suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,850/- was decreed by the trial court, but dismissed in Appeal. The plaintiff came forward with the case that an amount of Rs. 6,000/- was borrowed by the defendant at about 6.30 a.m. on 16-12-1974 for the purpose of paying the taxes due on his lorry, promising to return the same after drawing the amount from the Bank. But, till 4. 00 p.m. the defendant did not return the amount. Thereupon, the plaintiff went to the defendant's office-cum-residence, between 4.30 and 5.00 P. M. and asked for the amount. The defendant expressed his inability to return the same and, accordingly, executed a promissory note as collateral security for the amount borrowed in the morning. However, instead of affixing the Revenue stamps on the promissory note, the defendant affixed postal stamps thereon. This error was discovered by the plaintiff only when he consulted his lawyer for issuing the suit notice. The suit was laid on the basis of the original lending and borrowing.

(2.) The defendant, in his written statement, denied the borrowing of the money on the morning. He also denied the execution of the promissory note. He submitted that the suit promissory note is invalid, inoperative and unenforceable. In view of the inadmissibiiity of the document, the defendant submitted, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to rely upon the so-called admission in the defendant's reply notice. He withdrew the admission made in his reply notice.

(3.) The trial court believed the evidence adduced by the plaintiff and held that the loan was advanced in the morning, while the promissory note was executed in the evening and that, notwithstanding the inadmissibiiity of the promissory note the suit is maintainable. On appeal, however, the appellate court came to a contrary conclusion, it held that the story of the lending in the morning is not true and that, the lending of the money and the execution of the promissory note was simultaneous. Since the promissory note is inadmissible in evidence on account of being unstamped, as required by law, it dismissed the suit. Hence this second appeal.