1966 (3) TMI 92

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g of the appellant, the lower Courts have held that the promissory note was genuine. The admitted handwriting and signatures are available in Exts. D-1 and D-2; and it is not very easy to say that they are exactly similar to the handwriting and signature in the suit promissory note. Still, being a second appellate Court, I agree with the lower Courts. Mr. P. K. Krishnankutty Menon, on behalf of the appellant, then pleads that the appellant might be Riven an opportunity to produce expert evidence on the question. It does not appear that the appellant made any such prayer before the lower Courts. The suit was filed in 1954; and it may not be proper to accede to this request after twelve years and send back the case to the trial Court. Therefo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on, (1901) ILK 21 Mad 259. In that case a promissory note was signed by the sole, executant; and the requisite stamp was affixed and cancelled after the signing. The Division Bench held that the signing and affixing of the stamp were practically simultaneous. In other words, they were treated as one transaction: the stamping was held to be at the time of execution. 5. The ruling of the Madras High Court has not been followed by the Bombay High Court. Chagla C. J. has said that it is difficult to understand the significance of the expression "practically simultaneous". In the opinion of the Bombay High Court the signing must be after the affixing of stamps. With due respect to the eminent Chief Justice and to the Division Bench, I venture....