A promissory note executed outside India but bearing Indian Stamp sufficient for validation as a negotiable instrument does not require again the proper stamp to be affixed and cancelled before it is endorsed in favor of the first holder in India.

( 1 ) THE common question raised in these two revision petitions is whether a promissory note executed outside British India but bearing Indian Stamp sufficient for validation as a negotiable instrument requires again the proper stamp to be affixed and cancelled before it is endorsed in favour of the first holder in India.

( 2 ) THE few following facts are necessary to be stated: The Small Cause Suits Nos. 223 and 224 of 1956 have been filed by the plaintiff each for recovery of Rs. 1,297-1-9 based on two separate promissory notes executed on 26-5-1953 by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs transferor. Each of those promissory notes bore the Indian Stamp sufficient for validation of the stamp if they were executed In India. But the learned Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada has found that those promissory notes in fact were executed in Katla Kachavaram in Hyderabad State in favour of the transferor of the plaintiff and endorsed in favour of the plaintiff on 16-5-1956. The point taken by the defendant that a promissory note executed outside British India, but stamped in accordance with the law in India is not enforceable has been negatived by the learned Subordinate Judge, But ha however held that even a promissory note so stamped and executed outside British India requires that another proper stamp should be affixed and cancelled in order to render the endorsement of that promissory note effective and enforceable. In those revision petitions, it is the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge on the second point that is questioned.

( 3 ) AS regards the first point concerning the enforceability of the promissory note even though executed outside British India but stamped according to the law in India a decision of the Bombay High Court in Dhondlram Chatrabliuj v. Sadasuk Savatram, AIR 1918 Bom 211 is in point. There, the Division Bench consisting of Batchelor Ag. C. J. and Shah, J. , while considering the maintainability of a suit brought on a promissory note executed in Hyderabad State not bearing stamp as required by laws of the Hyderabad State, but stamped with British India Stamp, applied the principle laid down in James v. Catherwood, (1823) 3 Dow and Ry. 190 and approved the following passage which reads as follows:"it would be productive of prodigious inconvenience, if in every case in which an instrument was executed in a foreign country, we were to receive in evidence what the law of that country was, in order to ascertain whether the Instrument was or was not valid. "batchelor, Ag. Chief Justice, summing up the conclusion of the Division Bench, observed as follows:"that, if the law of the foreign country in which the document was executed provides no more than that the agreement shall not be received in evidence, because it is not stamped, then the agreement may be sued upon and enforced in a Court in British India; but if the law of the foreign country provides that, by reason of the want of stamp, the agreement itself which is contained in the unstamped document shall be void, then the plaintiff cannot succeed in a court of British India. "the relevant portion of the Hyderabad Stamp Act, Act IV of 1331 Fasli bearing on the point in Section 33, Sub-section (1) of which reads as follows:"no person having by [aw or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, shall admit in evidence an instrument on which duty is payable and no such person or Government Servant shall act upon, register or authenticate it unless it is duly stamped. "

( 4 ) IT is clear from the language of this that this provision does not make an unstamped promissory note void, but renders only inadmissible. The same has been the prevailing view in Madras and should be taken to govern the State of Andhra Pradesh concerning the enforceability of such unstamped promissory notes. The rest of the decisions referred to also proceed on the same basis. This view cannot therefore be differed from as the same is not also questioned by the l