S. Mohan, J.
1. Aggrieved by the decree passed by the Courts below in the suit on a promissory note, Exhibit A-1, the defendant has come up by way of Second Appeal.
2. The allegations in the plaint are that the defendant is a permanent resident of Thevarambur, Ranmad District. He borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,600 upon a promissory note from one Rama Konar of Pillamangalam Village for meeting his family and agricultural expenses while he and the said Rama Konar were in India. Subsequently, he went to Singapore and Rama Konar also went there. In Singapore the defendant executed a promissory note on 22nd October, 1962 affixing Indian stamp and agreeing to repay the said sum with interest at 6 per cent per annum. In spite of repeated demands, the said amount remained unpaid. Rama Konar having assigned the promissory note to the plaintiff on 1st August, 1964 the present suit has come to be filed.
3. In the written statement, the defendant denied the borrowing and the executing of the promissory note in Singapore. His case was that in 1958 itself he left India for Singapore and since then, he had been residing continuously and the amount that was borrowed was in Singapore dollars. It was agreed that the money should be repaid in Singapore. Until May, 1964 interest was regularly paid to Rama Konar every month. The further contention of the defendant was since the plaintiff had not complied with the provisions of the Money Lenders' Ordinance, Singapore, the suit had to fail.
4. The learned District Munsif held that the suit promissory note did not come under the provisions of Singapore Money Lenders Ordinance and the partial failure of consideration and the discharge pleaded by the defendant were (not) true and thus decreed the suit. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge accepted those findings.
5. Mr. T.R. Mani, the Learned Counsel for the defendant draws my attention to the decision of Alagiriswami, J., as he then wag, in A.A.O. Nos. 48 and 49 of 1968, wherein the learned judge held : 'the instrument was endorsed in favour of the respondent in these two cases in Singapore...In this case we are not concerned, with costs of transfer in India.' On this basis, the learned Judge rejected the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant about the nature of the instrument and after the dismissal of this appeal against appellate order, when the matter went back to the Court below, since they were bound by the judgment of the High Court, the question whether the instrument was a foreign instrument or an 'inland instrument' and the applicability of Section 19 of the Indian Stamp Act was not available to him and consequently, it had caused serious prejudice.
6. Mr. K. Gopalachari, the Learned Counsel for the respondent, in meeting this contention, submits that, no doubt, the two findings of Alagiriswami, J., extracted above, are not factually correct. But if a look at the suit promissory note is made it will clearly go to show that it is only an 'inland instrument' within the meaning of Section 11 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The preamble of the promissory note recites that both the parties are only temporarily residing in Singapore. The Tamil portion, for proper appreciation, is as follows :
Section 11 clearly lays down that if a promissory note is drawn upon any person resident in India, it shall be deemed to be an 'inland instrument.' The decision in A.G. Kidston & Co., Ltd. v. Seth Brothers I.L.R. (1930) Cal. 730, is also relied on for this submission. I think that the Learned Counsel for the respondent is correct in his submission. The promissory note, undoubtedly, recites that both parties belong to India and temporarily are in. Singapore. That being so, this is an instrument drawn on a person resident in India and it is an inland instrument. So, whatever incorrect statements are found in the judgment of Alagiriswami, J., cannot, in any manner, prejudice the case of the appellant since I come to the conclusion that this an 'inland instrument' and the decision quoted above, viz., A.G. Kidston & CO., Ltd. v. Seth Brothers I.L.R. (1930) Cal. 730, fully supports the respondent.
7. The next submission of Mr. T.R. Mani, is that the suit promissory note offends Section 3 of the Money Lenders Ordinance of Singapore. The Courts below have found that only in these two cases, the plaintiff had advanced the amounts and therefore, he could be considered to be a money lender within the meaning of Section 3 of that Ordinance and that presumption being rebuttable, the evidence of P.W. 3 that her husband is a Municipal employee on daily wages at Singapore and not a money lender has been accepted. I am in entire agreement with this finding. In this view, I find that the suit promissory note does not, in any way, offend Section 3 of the said Ordinance.
8. The next contention is that the borrowing was only in Singapore dollars and that the money was not paid in India and the evidence that was let in concerning this issue was that the money was received by the mother of the defendant. Whatever may be the oral evidence concerning this, the document clearly recites that the money was advanced in India and the recitals of the plaint, in paragraph 3, also make it clear that the amount was received in India for agricultural expenses. So, this contention also fails. Thus, I find that there are no merits in this Second Appeal and I dismiss the same.
No costs : no leave.
9. The Second Appeal No. 594 of 1971 coming on for hearing on this day having been posted for clarification, the Court delivered the following Judgment (in this S.A. No. 594 of 1971).
10. The matter has been brought up before me having been put down for clarification. In view of finding in S.A. No. 453 of 1971, this second appeal will also stand dismissed.