Receipt versus promissory note: oral evidence may prove the real transaction, and repayment and limitation failed.

A writing framed primarily as a receipt for money, even though it stated a repayment time and interest, was treated as a receipt rather than a promissory note because it was not intended to operate as a negotiable instrument; it was therefore not inadmissible for want of proper stamp. Because the document did not contain the whole bargain, sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act did not exclude oral evidence to prove the real nature of the transaction and a later arrangement said to have been made in 1919. Repayment was not proved, and the claim was held not to be barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the document executed in 1917 was a promissory note and therefore inadmissible for want of proper stamp; (ii) whether oral evidence was barred by the Evidence Act from proving the real nature of the transaction and the 1919 arrangement; and (iii) whether the plaintiff's claim was defeated by limitation or by proof of repayment.

Issue (i): whether the document executed in 1917 was a promissory note and therefore inadmissible for want of proper stamp.

Analysis: A promissory note under the Negotiable Instruments Act requires an unconditional undertaking to pay a certain sum of money and must be capable of operating as a negotiable instrument. The document in question was framed as a receipt for money received, stating the sum, the time for repayment, and the rate of interest. It did not bear the character of a negotiable instrument and was not intended to be such. Being primarily a receipt, it was not within the definition of a promissory note for stamp purposes.

Conclusion: The document was not a promissory note and was not inadmissible on that ground.

Issue (ii): whether oral evidence was barred by the Evidence Act from proving the real nature of the transaction and the 1919 arrangement.

Analysis: The document did not record all the terms of the bargain or explain the source and character of the money received. Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act did not prevent proof of matters outside the document where the writing was not intended to be the complete contract. Oral evidence was therefore admissible to show whether the money was a loan or deposit and to prove the subsequent arrangement alleged to have been made in 1919.

Conclusion: Oral evidence was admissible to establish the surrounding transaction and the later arrangement.

Issue (iii): whether the plaintiff's claim was defeated by limitation or by proof of repayment.

Analysis: The defence of repayment was rejected as false. The relevant limitation articles governing money lent, money deposited payable on demand, and the residuary period did not assist the defendants once the later agreement of 1919 was accepted. Although some witnesses were unreliable, the false plea of repayment and the surrounding circumstances supported the plaintiff's version that the money remained with the defendants on terms that no payment would be made until demanded.

Conclusion: The claim was not barred by limitation and repayment was not proved.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to succeed, and the earlier decree in his favour was restored, with the appeal succeeding substantially against the remaining defendants.

Ratio Decidendi: A writing that is primarily a receipt for money, though it states repayment terms, is not a promissory note unless it is an instrument intended to operate as a negotiable instrument; and where the writing does not embody the whole contract, oral evidence is admissible to prove the real transaction and any subsequent arrangement affecting liability.

---