The notification issued by the Central Government under Section 9 of the Stamp Act, which reduced the stamp duty on promissory notes payable otherwise than on demand, but not more than one year after date of sight, to two annas for every one thousand rupees or part thereof of the amount of the promissory note, was valid and applicable to the suit hundies.

SESHACHELAPATI, J.

( 1 ) 1. This Second Appeal is against the decision of the learned Additional District Judge, East Godavari, in A. S. 42 of 1953 on his file which in turn arises out of O. S. No. 25 of 1951 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Rajahmundry. 2. The defendants 1 and 2 in the suit are the appellants in this appeal. The 1st defendant is a registered partnership firm doing business at Tade-pallingudam under the name and style of Sree Rama Varaprasada Rice Mill and Prabhat Oil Works. The second defendant is the Managing partner of the 1st defendant-firm. Defendants 3 to 7 are the other partners of the firm. In this appeal they have been impleadcd as respondents 4 to 7. On 7-9-1947, the second defendant, who is the second appellant in this appeal, executed two hun-dies (Ex. A-1 and A-2) as the Managing partner of the 1st defendant-firm in sums of Rs. 2,000. 00 each in favour of one Sajjandas Khialdas, a banker doing money lending business at Rajahmundry for consideration. The hundies were payable on sight after 75 days. It is alleged that a contemporaneous agreement was also executed by the defendants on the same day agreeing to pay overdue interest at 15 per cent per annum. On 4-12-1947, a sum of Rs. 950. 00 was paid by the defendants and was duly appropriated towards the first of the two hundies. The payee, Sajjandas Khialdas died on 4-9-1949, bequeathing all his properties, moveable and immove-able, to his wife Leelavathi Bai, in and by his will dated 30-5-1949. The said Leelavathi Bai, in her turn executed a will on 9-10-1949, bequeathing all her properties and outstandings, including the suit debts to her three daughters, who had been implead-ed as defendants 8, 11 and 12, in the suit. Under the will of the said Leelavathi Bai, the plaintiff and defendants 9 and 10 were appointed executors. The suit for the balance due on the two hundies has been filed by the plaintiff as one of the executors, and a decree in favour of the plaintiff and defendants 9 and 10, the two other executors, has been prayed for, in the plaint. 3. The third defendant, one Pasala Satyanara-yana filed a written statement raising several defences. It was alleged that Ex. A-1 and A-2 are not hundies, but promissory notes, that they have not been properly stamped, that there was a material alteration in the suit documents, that the plaintiff has no locus standi as be was not the executor of the will of Sajjendas, that even otherwise since only one of the executors of the will of Leelavathi Bai had instituted the suit it was not maintainable, that the suit documents were executed at Tadepalli-gudem, that the sums due thereon were payable at Secunderabad and by reason thereof, the Court of the Subordinate Judge Rajahmundry had no jurisdiction, that Ex. A-1 and A-2 were not presented for payment at the proper place, that only 6 per cent interest could be allowed, and that in any case, the debt should be scaled down in accordance with the provisions of Act IV of 1938, The written statement filed by the 2nd defendant was adopted by defendants 1, 2, 5 and 8. 4. The learned Subordinate Judge framed the necessary issues and in a well considered judgment found that the suit documents are promissory notes though styled hundies, that they were sufficiently stamped, that they were drawn and payable in British India, that there was no material alteration, that the plaintiff had locus standi to institute the suit, that the wills of Sajjan Das and Leelavathi Bai were true, that letters of administration had been duly obtained for Leelavathi Bais will, that the will of Sajjan Das did not require probate as being mafussil will, and that the suit documents were executed at Rajahmundry so that the Sub-Court, Rajahmundry had territorial jurisdiction to try and determine the suit. Therefore, the learned Subordinate Judge passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff and awarded interest at 6 per cent per annum. 5. In appeal to the District Court, East Goda-va

Click Here to Read the rest of this document