D JOGANNA Vs. U CHAYADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy in this revision petition is whether the suit documents dated 22-5-1985 and 9-9-1985 styled as letters that were not stamped at the time of their execution are promissory notes as defined under Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and hence inadmissible in evidence by virtue of the provisions of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The facts that led to the controversy as set out in the impugned order are: The respondent/plaintiff filed OS.No.17/88 against the petitioner/defendant on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Razole, for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,53,477-69 on the foot of two documents dated 22-5-1985 and 9-9-1985 styled as letters addressed by the petitioner to the respondent acknowledging the receipt of Rs.57,560/- and Rs.56,540/- respectively and agreeing to repay the same on demand. The original documents were filed into the Court along with the plaint. On the objection raised by the office that they are liable to be stamped, the respondent paid the requisite stamp duty and penalty. The petitioner, having received notice in the suit, filed a detailed written statement through his Counsel. In a political agitation that took place on 26-12-1988 the suit record and some other records of the Court were burnt by an unruly mob. However, the suit record was reconstructed. The suit was taken up for trial in the year 1996. When the Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff wanted to mark the photostat copies of the suit documents through P.W.1, the Counsel for the petitioner/defendant objected to their receipt and marking on the ground that they are promissory notes and hence inadmissible in evidence. The learned Subordinate Judge, having overruled the said objection, by order dated 14-8-96, held that they are admissible and can be received in evidence. Hence, this revision petition by the defendant, namely, Dokka Joganna.

(2.) The suit documents were written in Telugu. Their contents are almost identical excep t with regard to the date and the amount. It would be, therefore, enough to state the contents of one of the two documents. The translated version of document dated 22-5-1985 reads thus:

(3.) Sri M.S.R.Subrahmanyam, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit documents that were unstamped at the time of their execution satisfy the essential requirements of a promissory note as defined under Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and hence they are inadmissible in evidence by virtue of the embargo placed under proviso (a) to Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. His further submission is that the trial Court committed an illegality in basing its decision on the pleadings set out in the written statement filed by the petitioner. According to him, the Court should interpret the instrument only looking at the instrument itself and it should not act upon any other material to interpret the same. He also maintains that the Court has got a duty to refuse to admit an instrument not duly stamped whether or not the party or his Counsel objects to its admission. In opposition, it is contended by Sri V.LN.G.K. Murthy, learned Counsel for the respondents, that a promissory note besides fulfilling the requirements as laid down in Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must also be intended by the parties at the time of its execution to be a promissory note. On that score, he maintains that the trial Court is well justified in referring to the pleadings as set out by the petitioner in his written statement. In view of these rival contentions, the point that emerges for consideration is whether the trial Court committed any illegality in holding that the suit documents are admissible in evidence, over-ruling the objection of the petitioner that they are promissory notes.