LLNGAIAH A Vs. P SATHYA BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff filed suit - O.S.No. 43 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif, Kodad, Nalgonda district, against the petitioner/ defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,600/- contending that the petitioner borrowed Rs. 7,440/- and Rs. 5000/- from the second respondent under two different pronotes and paid only Rs. 3,300/- and that the respondent No. 1 was holder in due course. During the course of trial, when the first respondent wanted to mark the documents, the petitioner took objection stating that as the documents are not stamped, they are not admissible in evidence. The Court below held that these two documents are promissory notes and directed the first respondent-plaintiff to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty on them. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has come up with this revision.

(2.) Mr. M.Rajamalla Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the two documents being pronotes cannot be admitted in evidence, even after paying necessary stamp duty and penalty in view of Section 35 of Stamp Act. In order to determine the controversy, first the nature of the document has to be determined. The documents are almost identical except in one document the amount is stated as Rs. 5000/- to be repaid immediately after Deepavali, while in another document the amount is mentioned as Rs.7,440/- payable immediately after Ugadi. One document is extracted hereunder: (Telugu Portion - Omitted) The translated copies of the documents have not been filed by the parties. From the retitals of the documents, it is seen that the petitioner has borrowed a sum and agreed to repay the same without interest immediately after Deepavali or Ugadi as the case may be. Both the documents are attested by one common witness viz., N. Jagannadham. The endorsement on the back of the two deeds dated 27-12-1991 shows the transfer of the deed by the second respondent in favour of the first respondent. Thus the instruments in question are attested by a witness and not payable to order or bearer.

(3.) As I entertained a doubt - whether the finding of the Court below that the documents are promissory notes is correct, I asked the learned Counsel for the petitioner to address his arguments on this question.