- (1.) This Court on 11-8-1997 made the following Order "Admit on the question whether Ex.A.2 is a valid promissory note or not?"
(2.) Sri Ravindranath Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the appellant- defendant had further pointed out to the following substantial questions of law which are specified as hereunder: (1) Whether the document can be treated as a Promissory Note and whether it is enforceable in law - when no revenue stamps are affixed underneath the said document as per the provisions of Stamp Act? (2) Whether a transfer endorsement (Ex.A.1) receiving the consideration can be treated as a Promissory Note as held by Appellate Court? (3) Whether it is not mandatory on the part of the plaintiff (alleged holder- in-due-course) to prove that a document (Ex.A.2) alleged to have been transferred to him, is a promissory note and it is enforceable and the transfer endorsement (Ex.A.1) for consideration enables him to recover the amount mentioned therein? (4) Whether the plaintiff can be treated as a holder-in-due-course by reason of an endorsement (Ex.A.1) on a document Ex.A.2 which is not a promissory note. The learned Counsel while further elaborating his submissions had taken this Court through Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter, in short, referred to as 'Act' for the purpose of convenience) and would maintain that even on a looking at Ex.A.2, it is clear that it is not stamped at all and a promissory note not duly stamped cannot be treated as a promissory note or at any rate, the same cannot be looked into for any purpose and the suit on the strength of such promissory note cannot be maintained. The learned Counsel also further had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and had pointed out several of the discrepancies in the evidence available on record and would maintain that even otherwise, inasmuch as, the Court of first instance recorded appropriate findings on appreciation of evidence, the reversal made by the appellate Court cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions.
(3.) Sri M. Sudhakar Reddy, the learned Counsel representing respondent- plaintiff, in all fairness, would submit that on the 1st page of the promissory note in question, there are no stamps affixed but it was shown as PTO and on the 2nd page, after referring to the payment made, the stamps had been duly affixed and duly signed by the executant and hence these two portions cannot be treated as separate. portions of the document or different portions of the document and all these recitals put together, would satisfy the ingredients of a promissory note as defined by Section 4 of the Act and hence the suit is perfectly maintainable. The learned Counsel placed reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his contentions. While elaborating his submissions, the Counsel also pointed out to the conduct of appellant-defendant and would comment that the Court of first instance was carried away by simple discrepancies whereas the appellate Court had appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and arrived at the correct conclusion. The learned Counsel pointed out to the relevant portions of the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and also recorded by the appellate Court. The learned Counsel would conclude' that, at any rate, such technicalities not to come in the way and liberal view to be taken while construing a document of this nature. The learned Counsel also had pointed out to all the recitals of the document in controversy.;