ANNAM VENKATA SUBBAYYA Vs. TADEPALLI SATYANARAYANAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the plaintiff, and seeks to revise an order by the District Munsif of Tenali, dated August 26, 1955, whereby a document has been found to be beyond the scope of a simple promissory note, to be an agreement, and, therefore, liable to pay extra stamp duty and penalty. The aforesaid order has been made in a suit to recover Rs. 303-3-6 being the amount due on the document, which is dated July 22, 1952, and had been executed by the defendants. As the form in which the undertaking to pay the amount has been given is important, I would quote in extenso the relevant part of the English translation of the document supplied to me : "While Chit Fund was organised in Lord Sri Krishna Chit Fund, Limited, Company in Gudivada, Satyanarayana Murti among us, having collected from us Rs. 2-8-0 per day, and subscribed for the Chit for the amount thus collected and while Satyanarayanamurti among us having bid at the auction of the chit on 19th July, 1952 as the last bidder and the bid having been confirmed in his name, we have received this day the sum of Rs. 269-0-0 being the bid amount.

(2.) Out of Rs. 500 being the amount of the chit after giving credit to the amount of Rs. 80 being subscription paid by the said Satyanarayanamurti every day till now, including the balance realised in the auction, we have to pay the balance of Rs. 420-0-0 (rupees four hundred and twenty only) with interest at Re. 1 per cent per month. If we pay the said sum of Rs. 420-0-0 at the rate of Rs. 2-8-0 per day including the profit accruing to us in the auctions from this day till.......you are to give up the interest and if we make default in paying the subscription amount of Rs. 2-8-0 to be paid every day, we promise to pay the said sum of Rs. 420-0-0 on demand with interest thereon at Re. 1 per cent per month to you or your order either both of us jointly or any one of us individually at once without reference to future instalments, get the payment endorsed on this promissory note and take a return of the same in addition to our giving up the rebate accruing after distributing to all the subscribers the balance of the amount remaining out of the realisations of the Chit auctions to be held by you every month, besides the amount of Rs. 25 being the commission agreed by us to be paid to you out of the balance of the chit amount after deducting therefrom the bid amount. Pronote executed with the consent of both of us".

(3.) The learned advocate for the revision petitioner has urged that the substantial character of the document is a promissory note ; and that the lower Court has erred in holding it to be an agreement. For proper appreciation of the argument it is essential to have the definition of' promissory note ' as given in section 2 (22) of the Stamp Act:-