The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of Income Tax documents as evidence and their status as public documents under Section 74 of the Evidence Act.

Wadsworth, J.

1. These two appeals raise the question of the liability of the appellant on two missing promissory notes, one for Rs. 9704 dated 16th February 1932 and the other for Rs. 24,400 dated 13th February 1933. The former promissory note formed the subject-matter of O.S. No. 14 of 1935 against which A.S. No. 234 is preferred. The execution of this promissory note was admitted but the defendant (appellant) pleaded that it was discharged except for a small amount. The second promissory note formed the subject-matter of O.S. No. 28 of 1936 (against which A.S. No. 235 is filed) and its execution is totally denied by the appellant. The promisee (plaintiff) was a well-to-do Vaisiya money-lender and it is common ground that up to 28th March 1934, he and the defendant, an important Mokhasadar, were on very friendly terms and had considerable dealings. On 1st February 1934, the defendant made over the income from some of his lands to his wife for a term of years and it is said that this transaction made the respondent uneasy about his advances to the appellant. On 17th February 1934, both the parties were at Ellore and it is alleged that the respondent, accompanied by P.W. 2, who is admittedly a member of the same community and indebted to the respondent, visited a vakil (P.W. 3) who also belongs to the Vaisya community and who is the legal adviser of P.W. 2. That vakil was asked to draft a promissory note in renewal of previous debts due from the appellant to the respondent, the promissory note to be executed by both the appellant and his wife because of the alienation in the wifes favour already referred to.

2. The plaintiffs case was that the vakil was shown both the promissory notes, not only the note for Rs. 9000 odd but also the note for Rs. 24,400 and that he prepared a draft with reference to those two notes which were to be renewed by the joint promissory note. It is alleged that in the same evening the draft was handed over to the appellant in the shop of P.W. 2 and that an arrangement was made that the appellant should send word to the respondent, so that the latter might come to the appellants house for the execution of the new promissory note. The respondent leaves at Chintalapudi, the appellant at Pothanur some five miles away from Chintalapudi. On 28th March 1934, there was a meeting of the Ohintalapudi Taluk Board of which both the plaintiff and the defendant were members. It is alleged that there was on that day some slight misunderstanding between them arising out of a vacancy on the District Educational Council. There is nothing to show however that there was any serious quarrel and the incident is only referred to on behalf of the appellant as indicating that the appellant would not be very likely to have to send an invitation on the following day to the respondent. It is by no means clearly established that any real misunderstanding did in fact arise. On 29th March, it is alleged that the appellant sent his servant, G. Sitayya, who has not been examined, to the respondent to ask him to come on the following day with the notes to Pothanur for the execution of the joint promissory note. On the same evening, it is alleged that the appellant himself visited the respondent and told him that he and his wife would execute a fresh promissory note and asked him to bring the prior notes. At the same time he is alleged to have borrowed a further sum of Rs. 300.

3. On 30th March 1934, the respondent went to Pothanur accompanied by his brother Sitayya, (who has not been examined) and a dependant (P.W. 22) in a cart driven by D.W. 2. D.W. 2 denies that he drove the cart and even denies that he knows how to drive a cart and there is reason to think that he has been won over. The party is said to have met P.W. 12 and P.W. 17 on the way to Pothanur and to have told them the purpose of their journey. P.W. 12 is indebted to the plaintiff and P.W. 17s evidence is contradicted by D.W. 1 with reference to the object with which