JAGAT NARAYAN, J.—This is a revision application by two of the defendants against an order of the District Judge Pali dated 21st September 1956 holding the document on the the basis of which the present suit for recovery of money has been brought against them by the plaintiff is not a promissory note.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that Chhogalal defendant and his brother Meghraj deceased used to carry on business in Mysore State under the name and style Meghraj Hajarimal & Co.", that they used to borrow money for their business from Sukanraj plaintiff and Ok Chand defendant from time to time, that the accounts were finally settled between the parties on Kartik Sudi 1 Svt. 2005 and a Khata for Rs. 19,397/0/6 was executed by Meghraj and Chhogalal in favour of Sukanraj and Ok Chand on 2.11.1948 in Mysore State, This Khata was referred to as an account stated in para 3 of the plaint and it was also mentioned that it contained an express agreement that Chhogalal and Meghraj would pay the amount together with interest at Rs. -/8/- per month wherever it was demanded by Sukanraj and Ok Chand either in Marwar or outside it. The suit was instituted in the court of District Judge Pali on 2.7.1952 and the document was filed along with the plaint. It is not stamped with any revenue stamp. It bears two half-anna postage stamps. It runs as follows :—

It may be translated in English as follows :—

400/- Cash—Samvat 2005 Miti Asad Bad 10. Received cash — Rupees four hundred paid. M.H. Co. Sd/- Chhogalal. 19397/-/6 In words, Rupees nineteen thousand three hundred ninetyseven and anna half due, whereon monthly interest will be paid at the net rate of eight annas per month. This principal and interest is payable to Sah Sukan Rajji Ok Chandji of the village Ram Singhji-ka-Gurah in Marwar. This money due is unsecured. Wherever in Desh (i.e. Marwar) or in Pardesh (i.e. out of Marwar) the creditor will ask, it will be paid. Whenever the creditor will ask, the principal and interest shall be paid.Sd/- Meghraj Hajarimalji

300/- Samvat 2005 Miti Bhadva Sud 4. Paid cash.

700/-

1/2 annaPostageTicket 1/2 annaPostageTicket

Sd/- H. Meghraj

Meghral Hajarimal Co.Sd/- Chhoglal

1190/1/01158/1/0 Samvat 2005 Katik Bad 15 —Rs. 32/-Motor charges to and fromTo interest till Katik Bad 15 Smt. 2005.Ank 2315.14 at -/8/-debitedSd/- Meghral Hajarimalji

3. Before the learned District Judge it was argued on behalf of defendants that the above document was a promissory note as it contains an unconditional undertaking to pay a sum of money which is certain, to a person who is certain and which is signed by the maker. They purported to rely on the observations made in Sahu Brijraj Sharan Vs. Sahu Raghu-Nandan Sharan (1). He however held that every document fulfilling these terms is not necessarily a promissory note and that the intention of the parties in executing the document has also to be looked into. He found that the intention of the parties in executing the suit document was not to create a promissory note. He relied on a decision of this Court in Chiranjilal Vs. Ramnath(2).

4. As was pointed out by this Court in Gordhan Singh Vs. Suwalal (3), in Sahu Brij Raj Sharans case (1) no attempt was made to deal with all the requirements of a promissory note exhaustively. That case is an authority only for the proposition that in order to constitute a promissory note it is not essential that the payee should be specifically named after the words "I shall pay" or similar words, provided on reading the document as a whole there is no doubt as to who is the payee. It was laid down in Gordhan Singhs case(3) by this Court that apart from fulfilling the terms contained in the definition of promissory note as given in the Negotiable Instruments Act the instrument must pass three further tests before it can be treated as a promissory note :—

(1) The promise to pay must be the substance of the instrument,

(2) There must be nothing else inconsistent with the character of the instrume

Click Here to Read the rest of this document