Promissory note proof and endorsement evidence sustained; factual findings barred second appellate interference.

A promissory note and its part-payment endorsements were treated as proved and enforceable where the plaintiff's evidence and supporting testimony sufficiently established execution and the endorsements. The absence of an attesting witness did not, by itself, defeat proof of a negotiable instrument, and the defence that the document was incomplete or an inchoate stamped instrument failed on the facts. The second appeal disclosed no substantial question of law because the lower courts' findings rested on appreciation of evidence and were supported by the record. Concurrent decrees in favour of the plaintiff were therefore left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit promissory note and the payment endorsements were proved and enforceable despite the defence that the instrument was incomplete and unsupported by attesting witnesses; (ii) Whether the second appeal disclosed any substantial question of law warranting interference.

Issue (i): Whether the suit promissory note and the payment endorsements were proved and enforceable despite the defence that the instrument was incomplete and unsupported by attesting witnesses?

Analysis: The plaintiff's burden was to prove execution of the promissory note and the subsequent part-payment endorsements. The evidence of the plaintiff, together with the supporting testimony regarding the payment endorsements, was accepted as sufficient. The promissory note was treated as a negotiable instrument, and the absence of examination of the attesting witness did not by itself defeat proof of execution. The plea that the document was incomplete was rejected, and the alternative reliance on the concept of an inchoate stamped instrument did not assist the defence on the facts proved.

Conclusion: The promissory note and the payment endorsements were held to be proved and enforceable, against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the second appeal disclosed any substantial question of law warranting interference?

Analysis: The findings of the courts below turned on appreciation of evidence and were supported by the record. The defence version was found unsubstantiated, and no legally sustainable substantial question of law arose for consideration under the limited scope of second appellate jurisdiction.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law was found, and interference in second appeal was declined.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent decrees in favour of the plaintiff were left undisturbed, and the second appeal failed on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit based on a promissory note, the plaintiff must prove execution and endorsement transactions by satisfactory evidence, but once such proof is accepted, the defence cannot succeed merely by asserting incompleteness or by disputing attestation; a second appeal will not lie where the controversy is purely factual and no substantial question of law arises.

---