Skip to content


Valiappa Ravuthan Vs. Mahommed Khasim Marakayar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectBanking
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1882)ILR5Mad166
AppellantValiappa Ravuthan
RespondentMahommed Khasim Marakayar
Excerpt:
suit on hundi improperly stamped. - .....a. turner, kt., c.j.1. the plaintiff brought the suit against the defendant, the drawer of a hundi, to recover a balance due thereon. the defendant pleaded that the hundi was written on an insufficient stamp, and that to conceal the insufficiency of the stamp, the plaintiff had removed a slip of paper attached to the hundi, which contained the direction as to the time of payment and which the parties intended should form part of the instrument.2. the court of first instance found that the alteration alleged had been made, and that the hundi was insufficiently stamped, but held that the production of the hundi was unnecessary and that the plaintiff might, on independent evidence, recover the consideration, and gave the plaintiff a decree. the judge affirmed the decree. on second.....
Judgment:

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.

1. The plaintiff brought the suit against the defendant, the drawer of a hundi, to recover a balance due thereon. The defendant pleaded that the hundi was written on an insufficient stamp, and that to conceal the insufficiency of the stamp, the plaintiff had removed a slip of paper attached to the hundi, which contained the direction as to the time of payment and which the parties intended should form part of the instrument.

2. The Court of First Instance found that the alteration alleged had been made, and that the hundi was insufficiently stamped, but held that the production of the hundi was unnecessary and that the plaintiff might, on independent evidence, recover the consideration, and gave the plaintiff a decree. The Judge affirmed the decree. On second appeal, the defendant contends the hundi was the only legal evidence of the obligation created by it, and that the plaintiff cannot recover on it as it is insufficiently stamped and has been altered in a material particular by the plaintiff. The suit was not brought to recover the consideration. It was brought on the hundi; and the respondent can recover only on the hundi. The defendant was entitled to plead that the hundi was insufficiently stamped, and on the production of the hundi it would be apparent that the Court could not act on it. For these reasons we must hold the claim fails, and, reversing the decrees of the Courts below, dismiss the suit, but, under the circumstances, we direct each party to bear his own costs throughout.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //