V VEERAIAH Vs. MARGADARSI CHIT FUND P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that is referred to the Bench is whether the document on construction is to be held a promissory note on demand, or otherwise than on demand, or whether it is merely an agreement?

(2.) The Plaintiff a Chit Fund Company filed a suit for recovery of money on the basis of certain documents executed by the defendants. When the document in question which was executed by the defendants was sought to be marked, an objection was taken that it is a promissory note payable otherwise than on demand, and that it is not properly stamped and, therefore, becomes inadmissible in evidence. The learned Prl. District Munsif on a construction of the document held that it amounts only to an agreement and, therefore, it is admissible. As against that, the 4th defendant filed the civil revision petition and the learned single Judge after hearing the rival contentions referred it to a Bench. The learned single Judge felt that the observations made in Venkata Subbayya V. Satyanarayana Murthy (1) 1958 (1) An W R 224 strike a different note from those observations made in Thenappa V. Andiyappa (2) AIR 1971 Mad. 290 and, therefore, for an authoritative pronouncement, referred the matter to the Division Bench and that is how it has came up before us.

(3.) Before we consider the document and the terms therein, it may be necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of law. Section 2 (22) of the Indian Stamp Act defines the promissory note in the following terms : "Sec. 2 (22) Promissory Note-promissory note" means a promissory note, as defined by the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881);