Niamat Ullah, J.
1. This is a revision under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act. The plaintiff-applicant sued the defendant to recovery of Rs. 179 the price of certain bullocks, alleged to have been purchased by the defendant from him. The defendant contested the plaintiff's claim. In the course of evidence a document described in the judgment of the lower Court as 'hulia' was produced by the plaintiff, and it was found to have an endorsement on the reverse as follows:
One ox, worth Rs. 179, less Rs. 8 for an ox given in exchange, of Rs. 171 payable on demand at the rate of Rs. 2 per cent. per month.
3. Underneath this endorsement is the signature of Amar Singh the predecessor-in-title of the defendant opposite party. There is a practice in all cattle markets in these provinces to register full description of the cattle sold. The entries are made in two counter-parts of, the same document, one of which is handed over to the purchaser. The endorsement in question appears on the 'hulia' given to the plaintiff on that occasion. The learned Judge of the lower Court held that the endorsement amounts to a promissory note; and as it does not bear the requisite stamp, it is inadmissible in evidence, and that under Section 92, Indian Evidence Act, no other evidence was admissible. Reliance is placed on the case of Nazir Khan v. Ram Mohan : AIR1931All183 in which it was held that
Where there is a completed cause of action for recovery of money on foot of a distinct and separate transaction, and a promissory note is given as a collateral security, the plaintiff will be entitled to sue for the original consideration, even if, for some flaw in the promissory note, the promissory note itself may not be sued upon, being inadmissible in evidence.
Accepting this view as binding, I am unable to uphold the decision of the lower Court. The transaction of the sale of the bullocks between the plaintiff and Amar Singh was a transaction standing by itself, and the plaintiff's cause of action to recover the price for the bullock sold by him was a completed cause of action, separate and distinct from any other cause of action that might have arisen on the endorsement being made on the back of the 'hulia'. Assuming that the endorsement on the back of the 'hulia' is not admissible in evidence, the plaintiff is nevertheless entitled to recover the price of the bullocks sold by him to Amar Singh. It is open to him to prove by evidence that the price which the purchaser agreed to pay for the bullocks was Rs. 179. In this view, this revision is allowed, the decree of the lower Court is set aside and the case is sent back to that Court with the direction that it be disposed of according to law.