KOTTAMASU VENKATARATNAM Vs. POLISETTY BUTCHAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Subordinate Judge has not thought it necessary to try this suit in full. He dismissed it as a result of his finding on issue 5, which he took up as a preliminary issue. That issue is: Whether the suit document is a promissory note under the Stamp Act as contended by the defendants 3 and 4 and is inadmissible in evidence.

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge has found that the document is a promissory note, and, as it has not been stamped, he has found it inadmissible in evidence. He has therefore dismissed the suit.

(3.) Plaintiff 2 has appealed, contending that the document on which the Plaintiffs sued is not a promissory note. The crucial part of the document appears to me to be contained in two sentences: "We shall pay to you the said sum together with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum from this date as soon as you settled the High Court affair. If it shall be ordered by the Court that the aforesaid amount should be deposited in Court, we shall deposit only the said amount in Court and pay to you the amount of interest accruing thereon till that date." I do not think it can be reasonably contended that a document so framed is a promissory note within Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is clear that it does not contain an unconditional promise to pay the amount in question to the payees or to their order or to the bearer of the document. The promise is to pay the amount to the payees unless the Court directs that the amount shall be deposited in Court.