The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of a promissory note under the Indian Stamp Act and the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the application of legal principles to determine the nature of the document in question.

The plaintiff in O.S.NO.723 of 1998 before the District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli is the petitioner in both the Revision Petitions.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the amount based upon a document dated 6.10.1996 treating it as a promissory note. The said document has been marked as Ex.A.1. That thereafter, the defendant has filed an application in I.A.No.1020/2000 to cancel the marking of the said document Ex.A.1 and the same was allowed by the trial Court by its order dated 14.11.2000. Aggrieved by the above said orders, the plaintiff has filed C.R.P.No.897 of 2001. The plaintiff filed an application to amend the plaint in I.A.No.1116 of 2000, and the same was dismissed by the order dated 14.11.2000. As against the same, the plaintiff has preferred C.R.P.No.896/2001.

3. From the averments made in the plaint, it is seen that the document dated 6.10.96 is in five Rupees non judicial stamp paper and the same is duly attested by witness and the recitals in it are as follows:

4. The said document was also marked as Ex.A.1. The defendant has filed an application to cancel the said document on the ground that it is not a promissory note and hence it is inadmissible in evidence. Plaintiff also filed an application to amend the plaint, to treat the promissory note as bond.((yadast).

5. Now let us see the definition of a promissory note. Promissory Note is defined under Section 2(22) of the Indian Stamp Act which reads as under:

"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 many not be performed or happen;"

6. Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 defines the promissory note as under:

"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".

As per this Section, the promissory note must be in writing and there should be an unconditional undertaking to pay the amount to a certain person or to the order. But the definition under Section 2(22) of the Stamp Act is different, as condition or contingency could find a place in the promissory note. The definition of promissory note in the Stamp Act is wider than under Negotiable Instrument Act.

7. The trial Court marked the document as Ex.A.1.But, however,on an application of the defendant, the document was taken into consideration and the trial Court came to the conclusion that the document dated 6.10.96 does not fall within the definition of promissory note and the marking of the same is not proper and therefore, set aside the marking based upon the judgment of this Court in the case of BALAMANI VS. KAILASAM KONAR ( 2000-I-L.W.476).

8. Learned advocate for the revision petitioner would submit that the said order passed by the trial Court based upon the judgment cited supra is not proper. He would also rely upon the Full Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 1955 Madras Law Journal, 163. In that case, a case was referred to in the MATTER OF VALIDATION OF A DOCUMENT, DATED 14TH JUNE, 1947, EXECUTED BY KUPPUSWAMY CHETTIAR IN FAVOUR OF ARUNACHALA CHETTIAR. The said document was attested by one witness and also bears six annas revenue stamp. In that document also, it is stated as under:

"Promissory note executed on 14th June, 1947, in favour of Arunachala Chettiar, son of Kollakara Chettiar, residing at Palappudi village, hamlet of Satyamangalam, Gingi taluk, by Kuppuswami Chettiar, son of Venkatachala Chettiar, residing at the aforesaid village. In respect of the sum received from you at Tiruvannamalai by me in the year 1943 and given for opening a javuli shop by T.Arunachala Aiyar the sum found due to you is Rs.3000. As this sum of Rupee