Bharata Pisharodi v. Vasudevan Nambudri

ORDER OR REFERENCE TO FULL BENCH

At the hearing of this second appeal before us a question has been raised as to whether the following letter, dated the 6th November 1896, is a promissory-note or not—“In addition to Rs. 115 already received Rs. 385 is also required. Pleas send it by the bearer Streenivasan alias Appu taking his acknowledgment below. The amount will be Returned with interest at 12 per cant, without delay.” The District Munsif and the Subordinate Judge (on appeal) have on the strength of the decision in Channamma v. Ayyanna , decided that this letter is a promissory-note. We dissent from this view and are in favour of the contrary opinion as expressed in the following cases where similar letters are dealt with, — Narayanasami Mudaliar v. Lokambahmmal (2) and Dhond Bhat Narhar Bhat v. Atmaram Moreshvar (3).

As in our opinion the case of Channamma v. Ayyanna was wrongly decided, we refer for the opinion of a Full Bench the question as to whether the letter set forth in this reference is a promissory-note within the meaning of that term as used in section 34 of Act I of 1879.

The case came on for hearing before the Full Bench, constituted as above, in due course.

J.L Rosario for appellant.

K.P Govinda Menon for first respondent.

Opinion.— It is brought to our notice that the words “taking his acknowledgment below” do not exist in the document which gave rise to the reference, and we deal with the question on the footing that these words are not in the document. There is no unconditional-undertaking on the face of the document to pay the money. It is clear on the face of the document that the undertaking is conditional on the amount being remitted as requested. The document is, no doubt, similar to that in the case of Channamma v. Ayyanna , but we are unable to follow that decision. We think that the case of Narayanasami Mualiar v. Locombalammal is correctly decided.

Following that decision and the decision of the Division Bench of three Judges in Dhond Bhat Narhar Bhat v. Atmaram Moreshvar , we are of opinion that the document under reference is not a promissory-note within the meaning of that term as used in section 34, Act I of 1879.

The second appeal coming on for final hearing after the expression of opinion of the Full Bench. The Court delivered the following.

JUDGMENT

We set aside the decrees of both Courts and send back the suit to the District Munsif for trial on the merits in all the issues.