Promissory note payable on future date may be inadmissible, yet antecedent debt can still sustain the suit.
A promissory note fixing payment at a future date is not payable on demand; if the stamp affixed is insufficient, the instrument is inadmissible in evidence under the Stamp Act. Even so, where the note was executed in acknowledgment of an antecedent debt and recites prior receipt of money, the creditor may sue on the original debt as the independent cause of action. The exclusion of the instrument does not bar proof of the pre-existing liability, and Section 91 does not prevent reliance on that antecedent obligation.
Issues: (i) Whether the instrument executed by the defendant was a promissory note payable otherwise than on demand and therefore insufficiently stamped and inadmissible in evidence; (ii) Whether, despite inadmissibility of the instrument, the plaintiff could sue on the antecedent debt as the original cause of action.
Issue (i): Whether the instrument executed by the defendant was a promissory note payable otherwise than on demand and therefore insufficiently stamped and inadmissible in evidence.
Analysis: The instrument contained an unconditional undertaking to pay a definite sum after two years with interest. A promise is not conditional merely because the time for payment is fixed for a future date. Since time for payment was expressly specified, the instrument was not payable on demand within the meaning of the Negotiable Instruments Act and therefore fell within clause (b) of Article 49 of Schedule I to the Stamp Act. The stamp affixed was consequently insufficient, and the document was inadmissible for any purpose under Section 35.
Conclusion: The instrument was a promissory note payable otherwise than on demand, insufficiently stamped, and inadmissible in evidence.
Issue (ii): Whether, despite inadmissibility of the instrument, the plaintiff could sue on the antecedent debt as the original cause of action.
Analysis: The rule that a creditor cannot rely on oral evidence to vary the terms of an inadmissible instrument does not apply where the promissory note is given in respect of an antecedent debt. The document here itself recited that the defendant had already received the money, showing that the liability had arisen earlier. The prior indebtedness was therefore independently provable as the original cause of action, and Section 91 did not bar the suit on that footing.
Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to fall back on the antecedent debt, and the suit remained maintainable on that basis.
Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the suit on the preliminary objection was set aside and the matter was remanded for trial on the remaining issues, with the appeal succeeding.
Ratio Decidendi: A promissory note specifying a future time for payment is not payable on demand and, if insufficiently stamped, is inadmissible; however, where such an instrument is executed in acknowledgment of an antecedent debt, the creditor may sue on the original debt notwithstanding exclusion of the instrument itself.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
