Wanchoo, C.J.—This is a revision by Sahu Brijraj Sharan under sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and arises in the following circumstances.

2. A suit was filed by Sahu Raghunandan Sharan against Sahu Brijraj Sharan and his son Mahesh Chandra for a sum of Rs. 5793/15/3 on the basis of a document, dated the 6th August, 1948. The suit was resisted by the defendant Sahu Brijraj Sharan, and a preliminary issue was framed whether the document in question was admissible in evidence. In that connection, the case of the applicant was that the document was a promissory note, and as it was unstamped it was inadmissible in evidence under sec. 35 of the Stamp Act. The contention of the plaintiff. on the other hand, was that the document was an agreement and could be admitted in evidence on payment of duty and penalty. The court decided by its order, dated 1st October, 1953, that the document was an agreement, and could be admitted in evidence on payment of duty and penalty. Thereupon, the applicant applied to the court that he was filing a revision, and that duty and penalty be not accepted and the document be not admitted in evidence, as otherwise sec. 36 of the Stamp Act would come in his way. So the court stayed acceptance of duty and penalty, and the document has not yet been admitted in evidence.

3. The question lis whether the document, with which we are concerned, is a promissory note or not. It is in the following words:

"Shriman Sahu Raghunandan Sharanji, Sambhar Lake,

In your account Rs. 4,668/15/- are due from my son Mahesh Chandra. I shall pay that amount by December, 1948. You rest assured.

Brijraj Sharan"

6/8/48.

The definition of a promissory note is given in sec.4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in these words—

"A promissory note is an instrument in writing (not being a bank note or a currency note) containing an unconditional undertaking, signed by the maker, to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order of a certain person, or to the bearer of the instrument.1"

4. In order, therefore, that document should be a promissory note, it is necessary that there should be —

(i) an unconditional undertaking to pay,

(ii) the sum should be a sum of money and should be certain,

(iii) the payment should be to or to the order of a person who is certain, or to the bearer of the instrument,

(iv) and the maker should sign it.

If these four condition are present, a document becomes a promissory note. We have therefore, to see whether in this document all these four conditions are present. We may mention that the court below has held that this document is not a promissory note because it is not certain to whom the money is to be paid. The other three conditions, namely—

(i) that there should be an unconditional undertaking to pay,

(ii) that the amount should be an ascertaind sum of money, and

(iii) that the document should be signed by the maker.

are present in this case. Now all that has to be seen is whether the person to whom the payment is to be made is certain or not.

5. The lower court has stressed the fact the after the words "1 shall pay", the name of the payee does not appear. Therefore it has come to the conclusion that the payee is uncer-tain, and the document cannot be a promissory note. The trial court seems to have been led away by the fact that the payee was not specifically named after the words."I shall pay". But looking to illustration (b) of sec.4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is clear that if the person to whom the payment is to be made is certain from the words used in the document, that fact that that name is not mentioned after the words "I shall pay", or similar words would not mean that the payee was uncertain, and the document was not a promissory note. Illustration (b) is as follows:

"I acknowledge myself to be indebted to B in Rs. 1,000/- to be paid on demand, for value received."

In this illustration also, the words "to him"do not appear after the words "to be paid", but still the law gives this as an illustr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document