Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. The suit is filed on an insufficiently stamped promissory note. The learned Subordinate Judge has on the allegations in the plaint and the recitals in the note, holding that no-action would lie on the original consideration, dismissed the suit, without taking evidence. On this point there is-a marked conflict of judicial opinion in this Presidency, although the lower Court assumes that the law is clear and settled. Two recent decisions will serve to show how divergent the views taken by this Court on this question are. In Murugappa Chetty v. nachiappa Chetty 1934 Mad. 503, the question arose before Stone, J., in a case on the original, side of the High Court. There a hundi for Rs. 10,000 addressed to the plaintiffs firm was handed by the plaintiff to defendant 1 who deeming it equivalent to cash, executed in favour of the plaintiff a promissory note for that sum. The question arose, was there a cause of action independent of the note? Stone, J., thus observes:

Had the transaction in question stopped with the giving of the letter empowering defendant 1 to go to Madras and collect Rs. 10,000 it would not be arguable but that the plaintiff had a cause of act