A NARAYANA REDDY Vs. J SAROJINI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision preferred by the plaintiff who instituted a suit in the Court of the Small Causes at Hyderabad for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 850.00 on the foot of a promissory note dated 13-3-1957 executed by the first respondent herein, Sarojini Devi. The second respondent was used as a surety, the said liability having been undertaken by writing on the promissory note itself. The executant, the first respondent, was ex parte. The second respondent denied the suit transaction and her liability as surety thereunder. A further objection was taken by the second respondent (D-2), who contested the suit, that there has not been an effectual cancellation of one of the adhesive stamps which the instrument bears, that for the said reason the instrument shall be deemed to be unstamped and, as such, inadmissible in evidence.

(2.) The learned Judge disbelieved the case of the respondent (the contesting defendant) on merits but had upheld her contention that the suit pro-note was inadmissible and so dismissed the suit.

(3.) The point raised in this revision is that the learned Judge was in error in considering that one of the adhesive stamps affixed to the instrument was not cancelled in an effectual manner and inadmissible in evidence for that reason. It is the further contention that the question whether a stamp has been cancelled in an effectual manner has to be decided on the facts of each case. Thus, the point arising in this revision is whether the view of the learned Judge warrants interference in revision.