KODALI MATHAYA Vs. TANGOPPALA RAMAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit is on a pronote and not for the original consideration, the balance of purchase- money. Yarlagadda Veeraragavaya V/s. Gorantla Ramaya 29 M. 111 : 15 M.L.J. 484, has, therefore, no application. THE defendant admitted liability on the note but pleaded discharge. THE discharge was not gone into. THE question, however, is whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree. It has been held in Chenbasappa V/s. Lakshman Ramchandra 18 B. 369 and that decision is quoted with approval in Thaji Beebi V/s. Tirumalaiappa Pillay 30 M. 306 : 17 M.L.J. 308, that even where the defendant admits liability, the unstamped pro-note is acted upon if a decree is given in accordance with it. That Section 35 of the Stamp Act prohibits. I feel bound by the decision. I dismiss the petition with costs.