Venkataraman, J.- This is an appeal by the plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Pudukkottai on a preliminary point that the suit is not maintainable. The allegations in the plaint are, briefly, that the plaintiff’s father was running a money-lending business at Colombo under the name and style of A.S. f^. @i.) Money-lending Firm, that the defendant was an agent in that firm and was also having dealings of his own and was carrying on his business. On 16th June, 1961, when the accounts of the defendant were taken, the sum owed by the defendant to the plaintiff’s father’s firm was settled at Rs. 15,000. The defendant agreed to pay the said debt after the expiry of two years, and, in view of the close relationship between the parties, a low rate of interest was fixed, namely, two annas per Rs. 100 per month. To evidence the agreement he executed what the plaintiff styles as a ‘voucher’. After the death of the plaintiff’s father, the plaintiff became entitled to collect the debt and he, therefore, filed the suit on the original cause of action and consideration.

2. The defendant admits that he supervised the money-lending firm at Colombo carried on under the name and style of A.S. Money-lending Firm till 1957, but he states that he never had any dealings with the said firm. The plaintiff’s father was the elder sister’s husband of the defendant and the defendant was under the control of the plaintiff’s father. The plaintiff’s father was not able to send money from Colombo to India. He had given instructions to the defendant to send money from Ceylon in black market stealthily. When the defendant returned to India, the plaintiff’s father was under the impression that the defendant could have misappropriated a portion of the black money, and, therefore, made him execute the document mentioned in the plaint. He contended further that the document was a promissory note not sufficiently stamped and, therefores a suit could not lie on the basis of that promissory note.

3. One of the issues framed was Issue No. 3 to the following effect:

“Is the suit as framed on original cause of action and transaction not maintainable?”.

It is stated in the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge that by consent of the parties that issue was taken up for preliminary discussion. On issue No. 3 as a preliminary issue, the learned Judge held that the document embodied the terms of the contract between the parties, that it was a promissory note insufficiently stamped, that it could not be admitted at all and that it was not open to the plaintiff to fall back on the original cause of action. He purported to follow the decision of the Full Bench in Perumal Chettiar V. Kamakshi Ammal1. In the result, he dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal.

4. The relevant portion of the document may now be quoted:

It may thus be translated:

“I have already received Rs. 15,000 from your Colombo A.S. shop for doing business of my own. I shall pay it after two years on demand by you with interest at two annas per month pet Rs. 100 to you or to your order and receive back this promissory note.”

5. It is stamped with revenue stamps of 25P. (15 plus 10P.). The first question which has to be considered is whether the instrument is a promissory note at all. There can be no doubt that it is a promissory note for the purpose of the Stamp Act. The definition of promissory note in section 2 (22) of the Stamp Act is:

“ ‘Promissory note’ means a promissory note as defined by the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881;

It also includes a note promissing the payment of any sum of money out of any particular fund which may or may not be available or upon any condition of contingency which may or may not be performed or happen.”Section 4 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, defines promissory note thus.

“A ‘promissory note’ is an instrument in writing (not being a bank-note or a currency note) containing an unconditional undertaking signed by th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document