1937 (4) TMI 25

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dar Nath. 2. The facts found are that Sohan Lal had borrowed from the plaintiff Rs. 2,000 on a promissory note dated 9th October 1931, and subsequently he raised a further loan of Rs. 685 orally from him. These loans carried interest at 10 per cent. per annum. On 3rd March 1933 the sum of Rs. 2,974 was due on these transactions by Sohan Lal to the plaintiff when a settlement was arrived at between them, whereby it was agreed that if the sum of Rs. 2,500 was paid to the plaintiff forthwith, he would forgo the balance. Sohan Lal had Rs. 2,000 only with him at the time. He had, however, in the meantime approached Kidar Nath for accommodation, and the latter had given him a blank cheque, duly signed by him, authorizing him to fill in the amo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o recover the amount of the cheque from the maker under Section 20, and secondly because Section 20 was not applicable as it related to documents stamped in accordance with law . The document in dispute in this case was a cheque, which under the law did not require any stamp and was not stamped. For these reasons it was held that Section 20 did not apply and accordingly Kidar Nath was exonerated from all liability. Before me, no serious attempt has been made by the learned Counsel for the appellant to argue that Section 20 covered a case of this kind. That section lays down that: Where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments then in force in British India, an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ishonoured cheque. In my opinion, this statement in the plaint does not cover the case as now put by the learned Counsel before me. I therefore decline to adjudicate upon it. On these findings, the decision of the lower Appellate Court dismissing the suit against Kidar Nath must be upheld. 5. At the same time, I do not see why a decree for the full amount due on the original transaction should not have been passed against Sohan Lal. It was not denied by Sohan Lal that the sum of Rs. 2,974 was due by him to the plaintiff on 3rd March 1933 when the settlement above-mentioned was arrived. The plaintiff agreed to receive Rs. 2,500 in case this sum was paid to him forthwith. Sohan Lal paid him Rs. 2,000 only, and for the balance he handed ove .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X