MULJI MEHTA AND SONS Vs. C MOHAN KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the defendants against the order passed in O.S. No. 182 of 1985 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Rangareddy District at Saroornagar.

(2.) The plaintiff had filed the suit to recover an amount of Rs. 2,10,000.00 on the foot of eight promissory notes each of the value of Rs. 25,000.00. They were executed by the defendants in favour of M/s. Sugeshan Finance Investment as holders-in-due-course. The defendants contested the suit. They also filed written statements. They disputed the assignment of the pronotes in favour of the plaintiff by M/s. Sugeshan Finance Investment. Issues were framed and trial commenced on 28-11-1994 on which date, PW 1 was examined. The eight pronotes were marked as Exts. A-1 to A-8. When the endorsement on the reverse of the said pro-notes were sought to be marked, the defence counsel raised objections that the endorsements are not transfers, they are assignments of pronotes and, therefore, the plaintiff has to pay the stamp duty and penalty under the Indian Stamp Act. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, considering the rival contentions and also relying upon some decisions, held that the endorsements are in the form of transfer of debt and not the assignment of debt and as such, they do not require any stamp duty to be paid. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed by the defendants.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that on the reverse of the pronotes, the word 'assigned' is specifically written and that in such a case, it amounts to conveyance and to validate the assignments, stamp duty has to be paid by virtue of S. 130 of the Transfer of Property Act. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kamala Devi v. Takhatmal, AIR 1964 SC 859, wherein considering the scope of Ss, 94 to 98 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Supreme Court held (at p. 863 of AIR):