JUDGMENT
A.K. Rajan, J.
1. The Second Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
1. Whether the suit on an insufficiently stamped promissory note is maintainable on the original cause of action?
2. Whether the appellant is liable to pay interest as ordered by the lower court or as from the date of demand?
2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.5,700/- on 10.12.1987 for the purchase of spare parts for the lorry. On 6.6.1988 he has given a receipt acknowledging the debts payable by him. On the basis of the same, the suit has been filed for recovery for the amount of Rs.5,700/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit to the date of the decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% interest till the date of realisation. The trial Court decree the suit as prayed for. The first Appellate court confirmed the same. Against which the Second Appeal has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Ex.A1 is not a promissory note and it is written in a non-judicial stamp paper and therefore, it is not properly stamped. Hence the suit cannot be laid.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that Ex.A1 is not a document on which the claim has been made. The claim is based on the original cause of action and Ex.A1 is only the acknowledgment of debt and it can be written even in a white paper without any stamp.
5. The document, Ex.A.1 reads as follows:
” thf;FWjp fld; gj;jpuk; (gpuhk;rhp nehl;)
Mapuj;jp bjhs;shapuj;jp vz;gj;jp vl;lhk; tUlk; $^d; khjk; Mwhk; j[pajp totPRtuk; tpy;ny$; fiyefh; Chpy; jhkrk; ek;gh; tPl;oy; jhkrk; ntyha[jk; bgUkhs; ehlhh; kfd; V. Rg;ukzpak; ngh;f;F.
ehfh;;nfhtpy; tpy;ny$; bghpatpis Chpy; ghz;oad; bjUtpy; 66A, ek;gh; tPl;oy; jhkrk; gyntrKj;J ehlhh; kfd; Rak;g[ ehlhh; vGjpf;bfhLj;j thf;FWjp fld; gj;jpuk;.
vd;dbtd;why; ehd; 1987k; tUlk; ork;gh; khjk; gj;jhk; jpajp jh’;fsplk; MSN 417k; ek;gh; yhhpf;F !;bgah;ghh;l;;!;fs; (cjphp rhkhd;fs;) th’;f ntz;oa tiff;Fk; vd;Dila FLk;g rk;ge;jkhd bryt[f;Fkhf jh’;fsplk; buhf;fk; fldhf th’;fpd U[:gha; 5000/- ma;ahuapuKk; buhf;fk; bgw;Wf;bfhz;lgoahy; ,e;j tUlk; 1988 Mf!;l; khjk; Mwhk; jhajpf;Fs; jh’;fsplk; jpUk;gje;J ,e;j (gpuhk;rhp nehl;il) thf;FWjp fld; gj;jpuj;jpy; gw;Wr;rPl;L vGjp jpUk;g bgw;Wf; bfhs;ntd;/
nkw;go mtjpf;Fs; ehd; j’;fSf;F juj;jtwpdhy; mjdhy; j’;fSf;Fz;lhFk; rfy ec&;l’;fSf;Fk; nrh;j;J nkw;go U:gha; 5000/-j;Jf;Fk; mjh;f;Fz;lhd tl;oa[k; nrh;j;J vd;dplk; tNypj;J vLg;gjw;F ehDk; nkw;go MSN k; ek;gh; yhhpa[k; To cj;jputhjpaha; jh;tJk;khFk; ”
That is, the executant has received Rs.5,000/- for the purpose of purchase of spare parts for the lorry bearing registration No. MSN 417 and also for his family expenses and he agreed to repay the amount before the end of 6th August, 1988 and if for any reason, he fails to repay the amount before that date, the creditor can take action and recover the principal together with interest; to that extent, he gives a guarantee and his lorry No. MSN 417 also would be guarantee for that; that is, in case of failure to repay the amount as stated, he can proceed against the lorry by attaching and selling the lorry. Therefore, this document is not promissory note. Though in the bracket, it is stated as promissory note, it is not in fact a promissory note.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since it is written in non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.3.50 and since no adhesive stamp has been affixed, it has to be construed as insufficiently stamped promissory note and hence, it is not admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Stamp Act and cannot be used to prove the claim of the plaintiff. This Court in the case Shamlal & Company v. V.R.C. Rajagopala Chettiar has held that an insufficiently stamped promissory note is inadmissible in evidence. Referring to the contents of the documents, the Court has held that if the amount is not payable on demand and when there is no unconditional demand to pay the amount, the document is not a promissory note, since it is not payable on demand. This document, Ex.A.1 also does not specify that the amount is payable on demand. Therefore, this document, Ex.A.1 is not a promissory note. It is in the form of hypothecation deed and hence, it has to be stamped as bond. Therefore, the argument that Ex.A.1 is insufficiently stamped promissory note is not acceptable. In the same judgment, an earlier Full Bench decision in Perumal Chettiar v. Kamakshiammal (A.I.R. 1938 Madras) has been referred wherein this Court has held,
” …..if the note was given in respect of an antecedent debt, or as collateral security, or by way of conditional payment or if the note does not embody all the terms of the contract, the true nature of the transaction can be proved, but if the promissory note embodies all the terms of the contract, no suit on the debit will lie. ”
Therefore, no suit can be filed on the basis of the insufficiently stamped promissory note and such a document is inadmissible in evidence.
7. The wording from Ex.A1 proves that it is not a promissory note and is only the acknowledgement of the debt and also hypothecation of the lorry where he agrees to recover the amount by proceeding against the lorry. Therefore, it is not a promissory note within the meaning of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the suit filed on original cause of action is maintainable; Ex.A1 is only an acknowledgement and hence admissible in evidence. The lower Court have rightly decreed the suit as prayed for. Admittedly the appellant herein has deposited the entire amount in the court and it is in Court deposit. The respondent is entitled to withdraw the entire amount together with interest if any accrues in the fixed deposit.
8. The second appeal is dismissed. No costs.