MABU SAHEB Vs. V KRISHNA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is filed against the order in O.S.No 37 of 1991 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Nandikotkur.

(2.) An objection was raised by the Advocate for the respondent (sic. petitioner) at the time of marking of the documents through P.W.I. The learned Counsel for the petitioner (sic. respondent) argued that the respondent (sic. petitioner) borrowed the suit loan from the plaintiff under two chits. He also executed two chits. They are memoranda of agreements for taking amount from the plaintiff. He also submitted that they are not promissory notes. He further submitted that the promissory note as per Section 4 of Negotiable Instruments Act and also Section 2(22) of the Stamp Act, must contain unconditional undertaking to pay the amount. In this case, there is no unconditional undertaking. He relied upon Edward Waston vs. Mrs. Theresa Chitty. He prayed for admission of documents as stamp duty and penalty under Article 6 of the Stamp Act are paid.

(3.) On the other hand it is the case of the defendant that the documents in question are promissory notes. The documents are not stamped. Therefore, they are not admissible in evidence, by virtue of Section 35(1) (a) of the Stamp Act. In support of his contention, he relied upon Judgment reported in Thenappa Chettiar vs. Andiyappa Chettiar. He also relied upon Judgment (reported) in Food Corporation of India vs. Sri Ramachandra B & R Rice Mill. He further relied upon a Division Bench Judgment in Shrinivas Pansari vs. Hari Prasad Mehra.