NARANJAN SINGH Vs. GURDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING dissatisfied with the dismissal of the suit and the appeal based on the promissory note for recovery of Rs. 3700/-, the original plaintiff has come in this second appeal before this court. According to the case of the appellant, respondent-defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs. 2950/-on 10. 6. 1972 and executed a promissory note mark 'a' along with pronote receipt mark 'b' According to the trial Court the promissory note was insufficiently stamped because it did not bear the adhesive 'refugee relief' stamp and, therefore, it was held that it could not be read in evidence. The trial court also held that the appellant's counsel fairly conceded that the document was inadmissible in evidence but he feebly argued that even though it was inadmissible in evidence, the advancement of loan was proved independently of the promissory note. The trial Court further observed that the promissory note contained the entire transaction of advancement of loan between the parties and oral evidence to prove the terms of transaction was not admissible under Section 91 of the Evidence Act and the document also being not admissible in evidence, the oral evidence shall be in the nature of the secondary evidence and is not admissible in evidence.

(2.) THE lower appellate court, of course, held that the execution of the promissory note and the receipt were sufficiently proved but promissory note was inadmissible in evidence because of want of 'refugee relief stamp, it also held that some of the stamps were cancelled by drawing a line and that was not a proper cancellation of the stamps. The lower appellate court has observed that" I have looked at the whole of the writing of the pronote and the lines drawn across those stamps under a magnifying glass and find that those lines across the stamps could not have been made with the pen with which the writing of the pronote was made. The line drawn across the stamps is much thinner than the line of the writing of the pronote suggesting that a different pen must have been used for cancellation. The shade of the ink used also appears to be somewhat different. The cummulative effect of all these circumstances is to show that two of the stamps were probably affixed subsequently or at any rate these were not properly cancelled. The result would be that the promote was in-sufficiently stamped and this would make it inadmissible in evidence. "

(3.) AS stated earlier because the pronote was held to be inadmissible in evidence, the appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate court.