9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a plaintiff can bring action for recovery of the amount advanced by him based on the original consideration when the promissory note on foot of which action is brought is inadmissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Stamp Act. 2. If the promissory note is inadmissible in evidence, whether action can be maintained for recovery of the amount either on the theory of "money had and received" or under the provisions of Section 70 of the Contract Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Recovery Based on Original Consideration The primary issue addressed is whether a plaintiff can recover the amount advanced based on the original consideration when the promissory note evidencing the transaction is inadmissible under Section 35 of the Stamp Act. The judgment clarifies that if a promissory note embodies all the terms of the contract and is improperly stamped, no suit on the debt will lie due to the combined effect of Section 35 of the Stamp Act and Section 91 of the Evidence Act. The Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Perumal Chettiar's case (MANU/TN/0229/1938) held that the plaintiff cannot recover money lent on an unstamped or insufficiently stamped promissory note apart from the note. However, if the promissory note does not embody all the terms of the contract, the true nature of the transaction can be proved, and a suit on the debt will lie if it is shown that the promissory note was given as a collateral security or by way of conditional payment. Issue 2: Recovery on the Theory of "Money Had and Received" or Section 70 of the Contract Act The judgment also addresses whether the plaintiff can maintain an action for recovery of the amount either on the theory of "money had and received" or under Section 70 of the Contract Act. The Full Bench concluded that Section 70 of the Contract Act cannot be invoked on the theories of implied promise, money had and received, quasi-contract, and just and reasonable or unjust enrichment. The judgment refutes the view expressed by Gopal Rao Ekbote, J. in Mohd. Jamal Saheb v. Munnar Begum (MANU/AP/0086/1964), which allowed recovery on the theory of "money had and received." The Full Bench emphasized that allowing such recovery would nullify the provisions of Section 91 of the Evidence Act and Section 35 of the Stamp Act. Conclusion: The judgment reaffirms that when a promissory note is inadmissible in evidence due to insufficient stamping, the plaintiff cannot recover the amount based on the original consideration unless it is proven that the promissory note was given as a collateral security or by way of conditional payment. Additionally, recovery under the theory of "money had and received" or Section 70 of the Contract Act is not permissible, as it would circumvent the statutory prohibitions of the Stamp Act and the Evidence Act.
|
