Skip to content


Kodali Mathaya Vs. Tangoppala Ramaya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in7Ind.Cas.320
AppellantKodali Mathaya
RespondentTangoppala Ramaya
Cases ReferredThaji Beebi v. Tirumalaiappa Pillay
Excerpt:
stamp act (ii of 1899), section 35 - suit on an unstamped pro-note--admission of liability by defendant--decree, whether valid. - .....the defendant admitted liability on the note but pleaded discharge. the discharge was not gone into. the question, however, is whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree. it has been held in chenbasappa v. lakshman ramchandra 18 b. 369 and that decision is quoted with approval in thaji beebi v. tirumalaiappa pillay 30 m. 306 : 17 m.l.j. 308, that even where the defendant admits liability, the unstamped pro-note is acted upon if a decree is given in accordance with it. that section 35 of the stamp act prohibits. i feel bound by the decision. i dismiss the petition with costs.
Judgment:

Krishnaswami Aiyar, J.

1. The suit is on a pronote and not for the original consideration, the balance of purchase-money. Yarlagadda Veeraragavaya v. Gorantla Ramaya 29 M. 111 : 15 M.L.J. 484, has, therefore, no application. The defendant admitted liability on the note but pleaded discharge. The discharge was not gone into. The question, however, is whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree. It has been held in Chenbasappa v. Lakshman Ramchandra 18 B. 369 and that decision is quoted with approval in Thaji Beebi v. Tirumalaiappa Pillay 30 M. 306 : 17 M.L.J. 308, that even where the defendant admits liability, the unstamped pro-note is acted upon if a decree is given in accordance with it. That Section 35 of the Stamp Act prohibits. I feel bound by the decision. I dismiss the petition with costs.


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