BAHADURRINISA BEGUM Vs. VASUDEV NAICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against an order of the First Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, given on 16 the January, 1965. It arises in the following circumstances:

(2.) Respondent No.1 instituted a suit for the recovery of some money due on a promissory note executed by the petitioner on 2/01/1962 in favour of respondents 2 and 3. Respondents 2 and 3 assigned the promissory note in favour of the 1st respondent-plaintiff by an endorsement. One of the objections taken by the 1st defendant i.e., the petitioner before me, in he written statement is that the suit document is a bond and not a promissory note. It was the further contended that the endorsement amounts to an assignment of an actionable claim. The argument therefore, was that both the document as well as the endorsement ought to have been executed on the stamp paper and that since they are not so executed, the plaintiff-respondent No.1 must pay the penalty for both these documents apart from the stamp duty payable thereon.

(3.) In pursuance of this objection, the trial Court framed issued 2, 3 and 4. These issues were considered first. The trial Court reached the conclusion that the suit document is a promissory note within the meaning of section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called the Act) and therefore, could be transferred by an endorsement under the provisions of the same Act and that the promissory note therefore, was properly stamped and the endorsement does not require any stamp and hence the plaintiff need not pay any stamp duty o firm whether