Endorsements of payments in the promissory note inadmissible for saving the limitation.

The plaintiff’s case was that she had advanced a loan of Rs. 320 to defendants 1 and 2, and that she subsequently on the same day obtained from them Exhibit A-1, which purported to be a promissory note for that amount. Exhibit A-1, however, could not be relied upon as a promissory note and admitted in evidence as such, because it was insufficiently stamped. The plaintiff therefore laid the suit on the original cause of action, the debt itself, independent of the promissory note. There were, however, endorsements of payment on Exhibit A-1, which were marked as Exhibits A-2, A-3 and A-4. The plaintiff relied on these endorsements of payment to save the claim based on the original cause of action from being barred by limitation.

The learned Subordinate Judge accepted the plaintiff’s evidence, that the promissory note in question, Exhibit A-1, was executed as security for the debt subsequently on the date on which the advance of loan was made, and the learned Subordinate Judge upheld the plaintiff’s contention, that the suit was maintainable on the original cause of action, the debt, even though Exhibit A-1 was inadmissible in evidence as a promissory note. The learned Judge, however, was of the view that the endorsements Exhibits A-2 to A-4 on which the plaintiff relied, could not save the claim to recover the debt itself from being barred by the law of limitation, as, in the opinion of the learned Judge, Exhibits A-2 to A-4 did not purport to acknowledge the debt itself. The plaintiff’s suit was dismissed. The plaintiff seeks to have that judgment set aside in revision.

Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge, that the suit itself was maintainable on the original debt, should not be allowed to prevail. He referred to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Perumal Chettiar v. Kamakshi Ammal1, and tried to bring the present case within the class of cases enumerated at page 943:

“If the promissory note is itself the consideration for the loan or if it is accepted as an accord and satisfaction of the original debt, the lender is restricted to his rights under the instrument.”

I have already pointed out that the learned Judge accepted the plaintiff’s oral testimony in this case, that the promissory note was taken not in satisfaction of the debt advanced earlier that day but merely as security for the repayment of the debt. In view of that finding, with which I cannot interfere in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents has to be rejected. Therefore, the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge, that the suit based upon the original cause of action, the debt itself, is maintainable, stands.

The next question is whether the learned Subordinate Judge’s view on the question of limitation was correct. No doubt Exhibits A-2, A-3 and A-4 specifically referred to the promissory note, and there was no express reference to the debt independent of the promissory note. The learned Judge purported to rely on Ghulam Murtasa v. Mt. Fasiunnisa2. But I am unable to see any real scope for extending to the facts of this case the principle laid down there. The learned Subordinate Judge held that in the absence of any evidence of the terms of the endorsement that had to be considered, the principle laid down in Kondamma v. Venkatarayadu3, could not apply. In Kondamma’s case3, Madhavan Nair, J., applied the principle laid down earlier by a Division Bench of this Court in Chokkalingam v. Annamalai1. Apparently, the learned Subordinate Judge did not refer to Chokkalingam’s case1though it was specifically referred to in Kondamma’s case2, In Chokkalingam v. Annamalai1, Srinivasa Aiyangar, J., in construing the scope of the acknowledgement relied upon, endorsed in an inadmissible document, observed:

“When it is said that payments were made on account of the chit, it means that payments were made on account of the debt evidenced by th