SEENI MUTTU v. MEERA SAIBO.

SEENI MUTTU v. MEERA SAIBO.

D. C., Puttalam, 1,364.

Prescription-Ordinance No. 22 of 1871, ss. 6, 7-Written agreement to pay certain moneys-Endorsement on document showing receipt of interest- Receipt not stamped-Inadmissibility of document to prove payment of interest so as to avoid prescription.

Plaintiff sued to recover certain moneys due upon a written agreement which was prescribed except for the payments of interest which appeared on the back of the document.

Held, that, for want of stamp duty payable on each of the endorsements, the plea of prescription should prevail, unless the plaintiff paid the duty and penalty provided by the Stamp Ordinance.

The plaintiff was given a month's time to produce a certificate from the Commissioner of Stamps that the duty and penalty have been paid.

PLAINTIFF sued upon a document, which he called a bond, by which the defendant admitted having borrowed from the plaintiff Rs. 220, and bound himself to pay interest thereon and supply every month 9 params of coppera to the plaintiff at the

rate of Rs. 50 per param. He claimed a sum of Rs. 440 as due to him upon the transaction. The defendant plea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document