MUTTAIYA CHETTY v. HARMANIS APPU

MUTTAIYA CHETTY v. HARMANIS APPU

C. R., Gampola, 3,710.

Promissory note-Due cancellation of stamp-Stamp Ordinance, 1890, s. 8- Objection taken for first time in appeal-Objection too late-Tender of promissory note in evidence-Civil Procedure Code, s. 154.

A promissory note not duly cancelled having been tendered in evidence, without objection taken, and judgment given for plaintiff, held, that it was too late in appeal to take that objection, and that the proper course was to have made that question an issue in the case.

Upon tender of the promissory note in evidence in the Court below, the procedure indicated in section 154 of the Civil Procedure Code should have been followed.

ACTION on a promissory note payable on demand for Rs. 230, which bore a stamp of five cents. The maker wrote his signature across the stamp, but did not put on it the date of the signing. The figures " 4-7-96 ". appeared on the face of the stamp, being evidently those of the stamp vendor. The note was dated 4th August, 1896.

Plea, forgery.

After evidence heard, the Commissioner entered judgment for plaintiff,

Defendant appealed.

Pieris, for appellant.-The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document