( 1 ) THE question referred to this Bench of seven Judges by a Division Bench to which two of us ( Obul Reddi and Madhava Reddy, JJ.) were members, is"whether a plaintiff can lay action for recovery of the amount advanced by him basing on the original cause of action when the negotiable instrument evidencing the transaction is inadmissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Stamp Act. "

( 2 ) THE necessity to refer the question to a larger Bench arose as a result of the view expressed by Gopal Rao Ekbote, J. ( as he then was ) in Mohd. Jamal Saheb v. Munnar Begum, AIR 1964 Andh Pra 188, which does not accord with the ruling of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Perumal Chettiar v. Kamakshi Ammal, ILR ( 1938 ) Mad 933 = ( AIR 1938 Mad 785 ( FB ) ). The learned Judge, Gopal Rao Ekbote, held that the plaintiff can have his money back through the document is in-admissible in evidence because it is in-sufficiently stamped and that Section 91 of the Evidence Act is no bar to the plaintiff succeeding on a non-contractual basis, that is, in an action for money had and received. In so coming to the conclusion, the learned Judge seems to have felt that he is not bound