ROHINI BAI Vs. SHAH BABULAL RAMANLAL AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Vedula Srinivas learned Advocate. As none appeared for the defendants, Sri Vedula Srinivas, was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.

(2.) During the pendency of this appeal, the 1st appellant-plaintiff, Smt. Rohini Bai, died and accordingly her legal representatives were brought on record as appellants 2 to 5. Originally the said Rohini Bai, filed O.S. No.47/79 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, for recovery of money on the strength of two promissory notes dated 25-2-1977 and 26-2-1977. In the written statement filed by the defendants, they took a plea that the promissory notes are insufficiently stamped. Thereafter the plaint was amended and in addition to the two promissory notes, the books of accounts maintained in the normal course of business by the plaintiff were also pressed into service. Issues were framed by the Trial Court and evidence was led and the suit was dismissed. The Trial Court held that in terms of Sec.35 of the Indian Stamp Act, the promissory notes could not be relied upon as they were insufficiently stamped. The books of accounts were also not relied upon by the Trial Court because some loose sheets were presented before the Court and the Court was of the view that the loose sheets supported by the plaintiff's statement alone could not be taken as proof of the transaction between the defendants and the plaintiff.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has neither challenges the findings of the Trial Court on the admissibility of the promotes nor she challenges the findings and conclusions drawn on the books of accounts placed before the Trial Court. But she submits that the suit was based on two promissory notes and the execution and receipt of money under one of the promissory notes was admitted by the defendants in their written statement.