PEDDA VENKATA REDDI Vs. VITTA HUSSAIN SETTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants are the appellants. In this appeal we are concerned only with the decree passed against the defendants for one of the suit amounts, namely, the amount due under Exhibit J, called "the promissory note bond" executed on the 25 March, 1921, by the father of the defendants. That "note bond" was in renewal of a previous "note bond" Ex. H executed on the 8 September, 1917. The defendants contention on the merits of the case is that both these notes are concoctions,, by the plaintiff and that they are therefore not liable to pay the amount claimed. They also raise a legal objection that Ex. J is a promissory note, and that being insufficiently stamped it should not have been accepted in evidence by the Lower Court. The learned Subordinate Judge overruled both the contentions and gave a decree in favour of the plaintiff. On the question of law he held that the suit note is a "bond" within the meaning of the term under the Stamp Act. Accordingly he levied a penalty on the document and admitted it in evidence.

(2.) The document is in these terms: On the 25 March, 1921, the promissory note bond executed in favour of Vitta Hussain Setti of Gadikota village by Peruma Reddi Bussa Reddi of Ravipadu village is as follows:--Under the note bond executed ere now on the 8 September, 1917, the balance found due as per accounts settled in person up to date is Rs. 5,080; I shall pay (this) sum of rupees five thousand and eighty with interest thereon at 7 annas per cent. per mensem, the principal and interest within a year from this date. If I fail so to pay I shall pay with interest at 8 annas per cent, per mensem the principal and interest to you or to your order on demand. Such is the pronote bond executed willingly of my own free will.

(3.) The first issue in the suit was whether the suit document, dated 25 March, 1921, is a bond or a promissory note. On this issue the learned Judge held, as already stated, the document in question cannot be treated as a promissory note, but is to be treated as a bond. The issue is found for the plaintiff. On the third issue, "If a pronote, whether it is not invalid for want of proper stamp" the learned Judge held, "if the document is to be taken as a pronote there can be no denying that it is invalid for want of proper stamp". Having regard to the finding on the third issue the learned Advocate-General argues that it cannot be taken that the learned Judge has definitely found that the suit note is a bond and has admitted it in evidence as such. We cannot accept this argument The finding on the third issue which is conditional cannot detract from the definiteness of the finding on the first issue. In our opinion the Lower Court has definitely found that the suit note is a bond and has admitted it in evidence levying penalty on it. This having been done, the question whether the suit note is a promissory note or a bond, which is really a debatable one, does not necessarily arise for decision, for under Section 36 of the Stamp Act Where an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such admission shall not, except as provided in Section 61 (this exception does not apply to the present case), be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped.