AT N AT CHOCKALINGAM CHETTIAR Vs. RAMA MU RAMA PALANIAPPA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff-appellant sued to recover a sum of money on the basis of what is referred to in the plaint as a "signed letter" given by the defendant on 12 April 1920. That letter bears only a one anna stamp and the lower Court has held that it is a promissory note not payable on demand" and is therefore insufficiently stamped. It dismissed the suit, holding that the suit is based only on that inadmissible letter, and not on any original debt as an independent cause of action. In the appeal the learned Advocate-General has contended that that letter is not a promissory note at all or, if it is a promissory note, it is payable on demand and is therefore duly stamped. The appellant has also taken the precaution of applying to this Court for permission to amend the plaint, by basing the claim, alternatively on the "debt" independently of the said letter. In support of the first contention urged on behalf of the appellant, viz., that the document in question, is not a promissory note, reliance is placed upon the fact that the document does not in terms contain a promise to pay to a specified person. The terms of the document are set out in the judgment of the lower Court. It is in these terms: 30 Panguni,-Sitharthi - Kallal At. N. A.T. varavu (credit) the same place E.M.M.R.M. patru (debit) for the two hundies taken by me and sent for our Penang firm as on 13 idem Rs. 9,500 at Rs. 95 (exchange rate) three months thavanai 11 annas interest, rings 10,000, for these 10,000 rings adding from thavanai, thavanai interest and principal will be paid and this letter taken back by me.

(2.) The document begins in the way in which similar documents in vogue among Chetties run, mentioning the fact of the money having been lent by A.T.N.A.T. and having been received by R.M.M.R.M. The English translation puts the concluding words in the passive voice. Perhaps it will be a more accurate rendering of the original to have these words in the active voice, i.e., "paying the principal and interest as per above terms I shall take back this letter." The point of the argument on behalf of the appellant is that the document does not say "paying to you"; and in support of that contention, reliance was placed upon a decision of this Court in Kadir Moithin Pulavar V/s. Pandurang Naidu 1934 Mad. 25. No exception can be taken to the principle laid down in that case that in considering whether a document is a promissory note or not, it is material to see whether the payee is named there. But neither that case nor any other decision lays down, in which part of the document the payee is to be named, or by what kind of language. On the other hand Illus. (b), Section 4, Negotiable Instruments Act, clearly shows that the reference to the payee need not be found in the words of promise. The illustration runs thus: I acknowledge myself to be indebted to B in Rs. 10,000 to be paid on demand for value received.

(3.) This is declared to be a promissory note within the meaning of the definition. In the document now in question, the promissor and the promisee are clearly indicated in the opening portion of the document and there is a definite promise to pay though it is worded in the participal form. There is therefore no force in the first contention. The second contention is that the reference to three months thavanai is only a provision for calculation of compound interest with three monthly rests and does not make the document payable otherwise than on demand. There was at one time some difference of opinion in the reported decisions in this Court, as to whether in the case of these thavanai documents among Nattukottai Chetties, the money becomes due immediately on the expiry of the first thavanai or only upon an express demand after the expiry of the thavanai but there was at no time any doubt whatever that during the first thavanai the money was not repayable. That this is the well established usage amongst Chetties in the case of these thavanai documents is shown by the plaintiff's admission as his own witness in the case, that the amount is not repayable within three months as it is given on three months thavanai. This contention therefore also fails.