VENKATESWARLU Vs. PITCHAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question that arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether the court below acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in dismissing the plaintiff's suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 245/- based on the letter Ex. A-1 construed as a pro-note on the ground that Ex. A-l is not stamped.

(2.) it is not in dispute that the defendant executed the document Ex. A-l in favour of the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 210/- and promised to pay at the rate of 12% per annum and executed the letter Ex. A-1 on 17-12-1974. But the defendant did not pay the amount due thereunder in spite of demands. At the initial state of the case, the court was of the view that Ex. A-l was a bond and the same view was taken by the plaintiff but the defendant contended that it was a pronote. The plaintiff marked Ex. A-l as his claim was based on that document. But Ex. A-l was marked subject to the admissibility as it is unstamped.

(3.) On a consideration of the document Ex. A-l the court below came to the conclusion i.hat it is a pronote and as such it is inadmissible in evidence under Section 35 of the STAMP ACT, 1899 and dismissed the suit.