The amendment of the Negotiable Instruments Act in 1919 did not change the definition of promissory note in section 4 or the definition of bond in section 2(5)(b) of the Stamp Act.

MALVANKAR.J -This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the district Judge, Osmanabad, in Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1968, arising out of the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Osmanabad, in Civil Suit No. 52/1 of 1955.

2. The predecessor of the respondents one Hirachand Amichand filed the suit for recovery of Rs.5,2500, S. on the basis of pro-note date December 6, 1952, alleged to have been executed by one Shivlal Raoji, the predecessor of the present appellants. The original defendant contested the claim denying both the execution and consideration of the pro-note. He also contended that the so calle4 pro-note was a money bond and the same being not duly stamped, it was inadmissible ~n evidence. The plaintiff filed th~ rejoinder refuting the contentions raised by the defendant and giving the, history and the details of the consideration. The rest of the cantentions are not material for our purpose. The learned trial Judge, on the evidence placed before him by the parties on both the sides, came to the conclusion that there was no consideration for the pro-note, and that the so-called pro-note being a money bond not duly stamped, it was inadmissible in evidence. He therefore, dismissed the plaintiffs suit with no. order as to costs. The plaintiff then went in appeal to the District Court. The learned District Judge found that the document on the basis of which the plaintiff sought to. recover the money was a pro-note and not a money bond, and that the plaintiff had proved both execution and consideration for the same. He, therefore, passed a decree for Rs. 4,500 with costs of the suit and future interest at 4 per cent. per annum. Being-aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the heirs and legal representatives of the original defendant have Come in second appeal to this Court.

3. The learned counsel Mr. Sathe, appearing on behalf of the appellants, first wanted to challenge the finding recorded by the learned District Judge on the question of execution and consideration by taking me through the evidence. However, both the findings being findings of facts based on evidence, and the learned counsel not being able to. urge any question of law on the strength of which these finding of facts could be disturbed, I have no alternative but to accept them and hold that the appellants cannot challenge these findings of facts in second appeal.

4. The important question, however, that is agitated before me in this appeal is whether the document, exh. 1, on the strength of which the respondents filed the suit for the recovery of money, is a pro-note Dr a money bond. The agreed translation of the document, which is originally in Urdu, reads thus:

"I, ShivaJal s/o Baoji Shah, r/o Tuljapur write this promissory note in favour of you Hirachand s/o Amichand, s/o Osmanabad, for Bs 4500/ I.G rupees four thousand five hundred I. G only being the agreed amount of an earlier promissory note, which is without interest and which I promise to pay to you on demand. Further there is a sep.\rate promissory note for Bs. 3300/- rupees three thousand and three hundred only, which has no connection with the sum or Rs. 4500/- I. G. for which this promissory is given. Miti Marghashirsh Vaidya 5, shake 1874, Date 6-12-52, in own handwriting.

Witnesses. Sd/- Shivalal Raoji Shah, In own handwriting.

Rangnath Krishnath Kakade.

Shankar Sambha Nayagaonkar. Amirkhan Ajamkha. Sadashiv Madhav Mane."

Now, the learned counsel Mr. Sathe has urged that the document being attested by witnesses and not being payable to order or bearer, is a band within the meaning of that word defined in section 2 (5) (b) of the Indian Stamp Act, inasmuch. as under this document the original defendant obliged himself to. pay money to the original plaintiff The learned counsel Mr. Deshpande, appearing on behalf of the respondents, however has argued that though the document is an attested one, it is clearly pro-note, inasmuch as (I) it is in writing and signed by the maker, (2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document