JAKKA GOPAL REDDY Vs. NEELAKANTAM VENKATA KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court on 11-8-1997 made the following Order "Admit on the question whether Ex.A.2 is a valid promissory note or not?"

(2.) Sri Ravindranath Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the appellant- defendant had further pointed out to the following substantial questions of law which are specified as hereunder:

(3.) Sri M. Sudhakar Reddy, the learned Counsel representing respondent- plaintiff, in all fairness, would submit that on the 1st page of the promissory note in question, there are no stamps affixed but it was shown as PTO and on the 2nd page, after referring to the payment made, the stamps had been duly affixed and duly signed by the executant and hence these two portions cannot be treated as separate. portions of the document or different portions of the document and all these recitals put together, would satisfy the ingredients of a promissory note as defined by Section 4 of the Act and hence the suit is perfectly maintainable. The learned Counsel placed reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his contentions. While elaborating his submissions, the Counsel also pointed out to the conduct of appellant-defendant and would comment that the Court of first instance was carried away by simple discrepancies whereas the appellate Court had appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and arrived at the correct conclusion. The learned Counsel pointed out to the relevant portions of the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and also recorded by the appellate Court. The learned Counsel would conclude' that, at any rate, such technicalities not to come in the way and liberal view to be taken while construing a document of this nature. The learned Counsel also had pointed out to all the recitals of the document in controversy.