The main legal point established is that a promissory note exceeding Rs. 250/- in value can be written on a paper having an impressed stamp or it can be stamped with adhesive stamps of the requisite value.

( 1 ) ORDER :- This is a defendants' revision against the judgement and decree dated 27th July, 1985 passed by the Civil Judge, Hospet, in R. A. 16/82 affirming the judgement and decree dated 19th Oct. 1982 passed by the Munsiff, Hospet, in O. S. 3/82, decreeing the suit.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed the suit alleging that the defendants on receiving Rs. 2000/- from him on 15-11-79 and agreeing to pay interest at 18% per annum, executed the suit pronote and also agreed to supply flowers raised by them to the plaintiff who is a wholesale dealer in flowers. It was agreed that the plaintiff should deduct the amount advanced by him for the supply of flowers to him. As the defendants failed to supply the flowers no amount could be adjusted. The defendants, notwithstanding many requests, did not return the money. Hence, the suit.

( 3 ) THE defendants resisted the suit.

( 4 ) THE trial court decreed the suit.

( 5 ) THE defendants' appeal to the lower appellate court proved abortive. Hence, the revision.

( 6 ) THE trial court, appreciating the oral evidence of the plaintiff-Bala Rangaiah and witnesses Ramappa-P. W. 2, Alla Bakash-P. W. 3, Kalappa P. W. 4 and the documents Exs. P1 to P5 and rejecting the oral evidence of Hanumanthappa, defendant No. 1 and Duggamma, defendant No. 2. concluded that the defendants had received the consideration and had failed to supply the flowers and that the defendants had executed the suit pronote. Hence, it decreed the suit.

( 7 ) THE lower appellate court also affirmed the said conclusions recorded by the trial court.

( 8 ) THESE are pure questions of facts and do not involve any question of law. Looking to the said evidence it is not even possible to take any separate view in the matter. Therefore the conclusions of the trial court and the conclusions arrived at by the lower appellate court that the defendants on receiving consideration of Rs. 2000/- have executed the suit pronote, are unassailable and they do not require any interference.

( 9 ) LEARNED counsel Savanur contended that the document had been written only on an impressed stamp and that adhesive stamps had not been used and that, therefore, it was a document not duly stamped and, therefore, not admissible in evidence.

( 10 ) LEARNED counsel Savanur referred me to S. 2 (22) of the Stamps Act which defines a pronote, It reads :"'promissory note' means a promissory note as defined by the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; it also includes a note promising the payment of any sum of money out of any particular fund which may or may not be available, or upon any condition or contingency which may or may not be performed or happen;"that the document in question amounts to promissory note within the meaning of Negotiable Instruments Act and the Stamp Act, cannot be disputed and is not disputed at all.

( 11 ) SECTION 35 of the Stamp Act reads, 'no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped : Provided that- (a) any such instrument not being an instrument chargeable with a duty not exceeding ten naye paise only, or a bill of exchange or promissory note, shall, subject to all just exceptions, be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable, or, in the case of an instrument, insufficiently stamped, of the amount required to make up such duty, together with a penalty of five rupees, or, when ten times the amount of the proper duty or deficient portion thereof exceeds five rupees, of a sum equal to ten times such duty or portion. Therefore S. 35 of the Stamp Act makes it clear that if a pronote is not executed on a duly stamped paper then it cannot be admitted in evidence at all, though the party right be willing to pay the duty and penalty.

( 12 ) THEN Sri S