The cancellation of a stamp by drawing two parallel lines across its face is sufficient within the meaning of Section 12 of the Stamp Act.

( 1 ) IN the Court of the Chief Judge, Small Causes, Hyderabad, the sole plaintiff S. Venkat Rao filed a suit (S. C. S. No. 135/2 of 1959) against the sole defendant Mrs. K. Sudersanam on a promissory note which had been executed by the defendant on 12-3-1956 for a sum of Rs. 1,000. 00. The defendant contested the suit on various grounds. The learned Chief Judge awarded a decree against the defendant as prayed for. The defendant thereupon filed this revision, petition against the said judgment and decree.

( 2 ) THE main contentions in the plaint were as follows: The defendant was a teacher in a Railway school and was known to the plaintiffs wife for a long time. The defendant approached the plaintiff for a loan of Rs. 1,600. 00 and the plaintiff accordingly agreed. The defendant herself wrote in urdu the promissory note (Ex. A-1) and receipt for a sum of Rs. 1,600. 00. After that, the plain-tiff found that he had only Rs. 1,000. 00 and had advanced that sum. At the instance of the defendant, the plaintiff struck out the figure of Rs. 1,600. 00 and noted in Telugu, the figure of Rs. 1,000. 00 which was actually the amount being advanced as loan. Then the defendant herself wrote Rs. 1,000. 00 in figures and signed in the promissory note.

( 3 ) IN her written statement, the defendant contended as follows: She obtained a loan of Rs. 200. 00 from the plaintiff in 1952 and paid large sums which amounted to much more than the interest and the principal. Still, the plaintiff represented that a sum of Rs. 800. 00 was still due from her and made her execute the promissory note and receipt for double that sum namely. Rs. 1,600. 00. It is true that she put the figure of Rs. 1,000. 00 in the promissory note. After the execution of the promissory note, she made payments amounting to Rs. 2,500. 00. The plaintiff was a money lender and had not complied with the provisions of the Hyderabad Money Lenders Act.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff deposed as P. W. 1 and also examined P. Ws. 2 and 3, who were attestors of the promissory note and who were working as co-teachers of the defendant. The defendant deposed as D. W. 1 in support of her contentions and examined besides, two other witnesses. D. W. 1 deposed that she used to carry meals to teachers and students of the Railway School and that the plaintiff used to come there for collecting amount due to him from the teachers and that she (D. W. 2) had also taken a loan of Rs. 50. 00 and paid interest to him. D. W. 2 said that she had never taken any receipts from the plaintiff for payments which she (D. W. 2) made and that she did not even execute any document for the loan which she took from the plaintiff. D. W. 3 is a teacher in the Railway School and said that he obtained a loan of Rs. 100. 00 from the plaintiff without executing any document and also made payments without taking receipt.

( 5 ) THE learned Chief Judge believed the plaintiffs case in preference to the defendants case after dealing with the various contentions which had been raised on behalf of the defendant. Regarding the witnesses, he made an observation as follows :-"after considering the evidence and keeping in view the demeanour of the witnesses in the witness-box, I am of opinion that the plaintiffs evidence is reliable and rings as true while the defendants evidence is not reliable. The two marginal witnesses (P. Ws. 2 and 3) of the promissory note are co-teachers of the defendant and any strained relations also are not alleged and there is no reason for disbelieving them when there are no material discrepancies in their evidence. The defendant has given a self-contradictory statement faltering at every step. "i see no sufficient reason to disagree with this finding regarding the oral evidence especially as it is based partly on demeanour which the learned Chief Judge was in a position to observe.

( 6 ) I deal below with the various contentions raised by the learned Advocate for the petitioner-defendant, Shri G. S. Purushota