047-NLR-NLR-V-05-PUTHAN-KANGANY-v.-PERUMAL.pdf
( 160 )
1001.
June 11
PUTHAN KANGANY v. PERUMAL.
C. R., Hatton, 3,099.
Promissory note—Stamped with postage stamp.
Per Lawbie, A.C.J.—A document running as follows:" We, the
" undersigned, promise to pay Puthao Kangany a sum of Bs. 137, being" debt- on two coolies, Kadirai and Nagamma,” is a promissory note.
But as it bore a postage stamp of 5 cents instead of a revenue stamp,it was held that plaintiff could not be sued upon it.
P
LAINTIFF alleged in his plaint that on the 8th November.
1890, the defendants undertook or promised to pay to theplaintiff the sum of Rs. 187, being the amount of the debt due tothe plaintiff from Kadirai and Nagamma, and that the defendantdid not pay the same. Plaintiff filed with his plaint a documentwhich ran as follows: —
“ November 8th 1899.
' “ We, the undersigned, promise to pay Puthan Kangany the sum“ of Rs. 137 being debt due on two coolies, Kadirai and Nagamma.
“ M. H. A. Peterkin.
" W. S. Hamilton.!'
A 5-cent postage stamp was affixed and cancelled 8-11-99.
Tfee defendants in their answer pleaded that plaintiff’s actionwas not maintainable, as the document they relied upon was badin law and of no avail. They denied their liability to pay plaintiffthe amount claimed.
On the trial day the only issue tried which was material to thisappeal, was whether the document in question was valid.
The Commissioner was of opinion that the document was not aguarantee,, but that it was intended only as evidence of a debt,and as such sufficiently stamped under the notification in theGovernment Gazette No. 5,417 of 10th July, 1896, page 365. TheCommissioner heard the parties' on the merits, and . enteredjudgment for plaintiff against the first defendant only.
First defendant appealed.
E. Jayawardana, for appellant.—The plaintiff cannot sue onthe document he has brought into Court. If it is a promissorynote, it is wrongly stamped. If it is an undertaking to payunder the Ordinance No. 7 of 1840 then, too, it is inadmissibleunder the Stamp Ordinance. Therefore, it is inadmissible anyway. Postage stamps are not usable on promissory notes.
( 161 )
Only revenue stamps can be used. [Lawrie, A.C.J.—A postagestamp is also a revenue stamp. What was the law in 1899, inwhich year this note was made?] The notification of 10th July,1895, gives a list of documents which may bear a postage stamp,in which promissory notes are omitted. So the postage stampdoes not help a promissory note. Ordinance No. 8 of 1890requires a 5-cent stamp. This notification excludes the use of thepostage stamp. The conclusion is that a revenue stamp must beused. As a promissory note, then, this document is inadmissible.Plaintiff says this is a simple undertaking. An undertaking mustbe evidenced by a document properly stamped, and for an under-taking in respect of an amount exceeding Bs. 100, the stampmust be of the value of 50 cents (see Oi-dinance No. 3 of 1890,Schedule B, under the head of Agreements). [Lawrie, A.C.J.—Is this a contract, or a promissory note, or an acknowledgmentof a debt?] It- is not an acknowledgment, because I cannotacknowledge another’s debt to a third party. Under thesection an acknowledgment must be one's own acknowledgment.[Lawrie, A.C.J.—It may be an acknowledgment on behalf ofanother, and then would not a postage stamp do?] An agentmay acknowledge. The evidence shows that what the partiesintended was a promissory note. The document itself showsthat it is in form a promissory note, and even if the evidence wasthe other way, oral evidence could not contradict the document.
Cur. adv. vult.
11th June, 1901. Lawrie, A.C.J.—
The document relied on by the plaintiff is a promissory note.It is not properly stamped. Bearing only a postage stamp itcannot be received in evidence. The action must be dismissedwith costs.
1901.
June 11.